Clarify file name of metadata file

[jeanas]

https://w3c.github.io/smufl/latest/specification/font-specific-metadata.html doesn’t say how it should be called. Is this arbitrary? Is there a recommendation?

[dspreadbury]

We should certainly clarify this. I think the convention that has come about is using the name of the font, e.g. "Bravura.json" or "Golden Age.json".

[jeanas]

Hm, actually https://w3c.github.io/smufl/latest/specification/font-metadata-locations.html gives this recommendation (unless I'm misunderstanding it?), but it's only explicit for metadata installed on the system.

[mnquintana]

FWIW I think it'd be worth standardizing a name and relative location (ie. at the root of the repo / download artifact) for the metadata file instead of letting each font pick their own, mostly because having a consistent convention would make it much more feasible to build tooling around Smufl without too much ceremony (sort of analogous to package.json in JavaScript land). As of now, without a consistent file name as a convention, tooling would either have to guess (e.g. just pick the first JSON file at the root of the repo and hope for the best), or force users to specify their font's metadata file via a CLI arg or some other config.