Font variant naming

Adobe is a classic and standard font variant naming.
Google is experimenting with adding a numeric weight to its name, shifting the focus to web design.
FontBase - 700writtentogetheritalic? Simplycopiedfromthedatabase? Isthiscomfortableforyou?

The latest version of FontBase with classic font variant naming: 2.17.5 (April 15, 2022)

Hello @NyBumBum, thank you for your post :pray:
Good catch :pray: Actually did notice that one space missing the other day myself, the fix is in the works.

Thank you again,

The question is not about one space, and not about how many years ago you lost the classic names of font variants. The question is: did you consciously abandon the classic name, replacing it with the template from the right column? Or is this also a bug?
I am familiar with the Google Fonts API and I know that the right column consists of internal names for storing in the Google Fonts API database. Did you consciously switch to this simplified format?

Thank you for the quick reply @NyBumBum :pray:
I’m pretty sure the idea was to be as close to the data the font provider intended to include as possible. So the short answer is no, that was not neither a conscious decision on our part nor a bug per se. But in no shape or form am I trying to take away your right to consider this a bug, on our or Google’s end, that is not my decision to make :pray: Personally I do understand and agree with the idea that the number system Google started using deviates a lot from the more common approach and can look quite a bit off.

Thank you again,

I’ve written a little Windows utility that converts the Google font database to FontBase font manager format, allowing me to manually update the Google font database in program. The application queries the Google Fonts API for a complete list of Google fonts, then it converts this list to FontBase format, calculates checksums of all fonts or retrieves them from the built-in database, and generates a google.json file with an up-to-date Google font database for FontBase with classic font variant naming.

I hope it will be useful for demanding FontBase users… Yes, and it is a chance to return to the classic naming of font variants.

The GF4FB utility is free, does not require installation, has open source and is available on GitHub: GitHub - nbb1967/gf4fb: Converter of Google Fonts database into FontBase font manager format

1 Like