[mpeg-OTspec] Proposal: Specify UTF encoding of Unicode strings

[Dave Pawson]

On 28 November 2011 20:07, Sairus Patel <sppatel at adobe.com> wrote:
> FWIW, in the very early days of Adobe's involvement in OT, Adobe had in fact proposed UTF-8 for 'name' table Unicode strings for platforms 0 and 3, so that they could be shared with the corresponding Mac Roman strings that also needed to be present in the 'name' table, thus reducing font size. The proposal was not accepted, possibly because Windows (or Mac OS) APIs used UTF-16 or because implementations already existed; I'm not sure.
>
> Sairus

So in fact, 'requiring an encoding specification' would have sufficed then?
I still think it sufficient Siarus?

Oh,
I'm being rejected from  <opentype-migration-list at indx.co.uk> btw?
What is that list please?

regards


>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Pawson [mailto:dave.pawson at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 11:44 AM
> To: Sairus Patel
> Cc: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com; opentype-migration-list at indx.co.uk
> Subject: Re: [mpeg-OTspec] Proposal: Specify UTF encoding of Unicode strings
>
> On 28 November 2011 18:35, Sairus Patel <sppatel at adobe.com> wrote:
>> Dave,
>>
>> The proposal seeks simply to clarify the specification.
>>
>> On the other hand, you seem to be talking about extending the specification to allow for more UTF encoding options for 'name' table strings.
>
> Agreed, ASCII or no specified encoding, isn't much good these days, but IMHO requiring utf-16 is too much.
>
> I'm simply saying that a single encoding is too strict, too limiting.
> for 80%, utf-8 may suffice, why constrain users?
> Hence allow users to use their own encodings, but simply require a declaration of that encoding.
>
>
> regards DaveP
>
>
>>
>> Sairus
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Pawson [mailto:dave.pawson at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 10:14 PM
>> To: Sairus Patel
>> Cc: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com; opentype-migration-list at indx.co.uk
>> Subject: Re: [mpeg-OTspec] Proposal: Specify UTF encoding of Unicode
>> strings
>>
>> On 24 November 2011 00:05, Sairus Patel <sppatel at adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> === Proposal { my comments are in curly brackets }
>>>
>>> { In http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/name.htm [OFF sec.
>>> 5.2.6]: }
>>>
>>> 1. { Insert the following sentence at the end of the paragraph
>>> "Unicode platform encoding ID 5 can be used for encodings in the
>>> 'cmap' table but not for strings in the 'name' table.": }
>>>
>>> Strings for all Unicode platform encoding IDs other than 5 must be encoded in UTF-16 (big endian).
>>>
>>> 2. { Insert the following paragraphs at the end of the "Windows
>>> platform-specific encoding IDs (platform ID= 3)" section: }
>>>
>>> Strings for Windows platform encoding ID 0 are considered to have Unicode semantics (UCS-2).
>>>
>>> Strings for Windows platform encoding IDs 0, 1, and 10 must be encoded in UTF-16 (big endian).
>>
>>
>>
>> Disagree. Specifying the encoding is a pain when done this way and too expensive.
>>
>> Specify the encoding used, don't require a particular one.
>> Allow iso-8859 or  utf-8, just let the reader know what it is.
>>
>> regards
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave Pawson
>> XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
>> Docbook FAQ.
>> http://www.dpawson.co.uk
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Pawson
> XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
> Docbook FAQ.
> http://www.dpawson.co.uk
>



-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk