There’s a great naming article over at Karsten Lucke’s site, kltf.de

Thanks James,
I did see that. Adam's just seemed easier to understand. I'm putting together a small FontLab tutorial for in-house use where I work and thought I would include some useful links.

Ah, that's quite inconvenient, as I also used to look up that MSN Groups article every now and then. Maybe Adam has the text that was on it backed up somewhere? Or maybe he can even write it again (for the newer FLStudio version)? :)

I have created an updated version of the naming guideline and posted this on the new FontLab forum:

Font Family Naming in FontLab Studio 5

BTW, we have archived the content from the old MSN FontLab groups, and the archives will at some point be imported into our new FontLab Forum.

Regards,
Adam Twardoch

Ahh, there it is again. Thanks! :)

Thanks, Adam!

Adam's just seemed easier to understand. I'm putting together a small FontLab tutorial for in-house use where I work and thought I would include some useful links.

I am aware of this, and the reason is that I am more interested in dependencies than in a single solution which in my opinion does not exist.
Is my observation (from your previous posts and work you showed) correct that you mostly do single- or two-style families? In this case you could easily set up a very simple naming how-to or chart by yourself, and you would not even need to mention the Preferred Family/Style name fields since these could be left empty.

Good to see the FLS5 Font Family Naming document back online! I hope the others too will be available soon.
(Adam, I notice the new terminology including "Typo Family Name" and wonder why you don't stick to FLS5's and AFDKO MakeOTF manual's "Preferred Family Name". This better expresses what you mean.)

Karsten,

I'm not at all happy with the "preferred" terminology. I plan to change some terminology for the next installment of our products.

A.

I completely agree that there is a need to emphasize that what's currently termed "preferred" names should be considered the "normal" ones (possibly by omitting any qualifier) while today's "normal" ones should be considered as "special" (serving for style-linking or "grouping" as you say). AFDKO does so since a long time. This is not a matter of words but of conception.
The only thing that I do not like is the term "typographic" -- everything we do is "typographic" somehow, so the term doesn't say anything, like "black" does not help to distinguish one kind of liquorice from another.

Karsten

like “black” does not help to distinguish one kind of liquorice from another.

Except for the ones that are red, but some would argue that those don't count.

:)

In my eyes, the term "typographic family" means "family in the typographic sense" i.e. tries to distinguish itself from "family in the technical sense". Anyhow, this will be explained in the FontLab Studio 6 manual :)