Nabla – Isometric Color Font
nabla.typearture.com
nabla.typearture.com
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_As...
Guido van Rossum's brother. He also designed the "Python powered" logo (and in his main career, had a hand in widely popular fonts like ITC Officina).
Only programming language I can think of with an instantly recognizable logo, other than Java
I never understood what that triangular clown was meant to be. Can't deny it's recognizable.
It might be a bit of a stretch, but he was originally more than a mascot but a "software agent" through which the user's actions were carried out, a sort of more active version of Clippy.
Not exactly iconic or wonderful.
Oh yay, another Google invention for the web that others now have to support or be accused of holding the web back. Is it Thursday already?
Firefox 107 will introduce COLRv1 support, though at least as things stand now the SVG glyphs still take precedence (unless you disable that feature).
Except, of course, when it's some company's own suggestion: MS will early-implement support for new features they themselves propose, Adobe will early-implement support for new features they themselves propose, and in this case Google's engineers had it implemented before it was officially accepted because they proposed it.
Mozilla (and everyone else) waited until the draft become part of the spec, then had to spend the time implement a (non-trivially complex) new rendering pipeline, and make sure that works properly. COLRv1 fonts should work perfectly fine as of Firefox 107.
The Nabla web page makes it seem like "Finally! Color fonts!" while Myles @ WebKit makes it clear that "Many OT-SVG fonts already exist," which seems true[0].
Sigh. I wish people viewed Google more accurately as breakers of web interoperability instead of praising the relentless Chrome hegemony.
0. https://helpx.adobe.com/fonts/using/ot-svg-color-fonts.html
The Y has a different baseline than the T, which also doesn't make sense. They are both a centered vertical line, so they should be the same.
Maybe I'm just completely wrong. But, my eyes are used to boring perspective projections, rather than whatever this is, which is probably why it looks so wrong to me.
I'm actually not making that assumption. I think it would be easier for my eyes if they did have the same transformation, but they clearly don't. My problem is that it's an impossible transformation!
If you place a piece of paper on your screen, as a horizontal reference line, you'll see the bottom (vertical) portion of the T is aligned with the left of the I. It extends all the way down. The top left of the T is also aligned with the left of the I. I don't see how this is possible.
Here's an image with T translated over to I, to demonstrate: https://imgur.com/a/aSJeYxT
The only way this is possible is if T has a longer horizontal line, which why it looks odd to me, a sort of "duck or woman" effect alternating between "is it left or center aligned", depending on if you look at the top or bottom, with the usual assumption that the characters would have the same height.
(Though in this case, the fact that the font also contains SVG glyphs gets in the way. Setting gfx.font_rendering.opentype_svg.enabled to false in about:config lets you see the COLRv1 glyphs.)
Error code: SIGILL
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/in...
I do worry about how heavy the OpenType spec is getting.
Okay this is actually pretty impressive. Definitely gives a gradient impression.