[mpeg-OTspec] Request to increase limit on post name ID

[Opstad, Dave]

As I recall, the reason was that the code Apple originally released that read 'post' tables used SInt16s instead of UInt16s, and that meant some values were coming back negative, which caused grief in some other parts of the code. In any case, such code has long since vanished from this Earth, so speaking as one of the guys who designed the 'post'  table in the first place, I say go ahead and remove the sentence.

Dave Opstad

From: Bob Hallissy <Bob_Hallissy at sil.org<mailto:Bob_Hallissy at sil.org>>
Date: Friday, February 8, 2013 6:26 PM
Cc: "mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com>" <mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com>>, OpenType List <opentype-migration-list at indx.co.uk<mailto:opentype-migration-list at indx.co.uk>>
Subject: Re: [mpeg-OTspec] Request to increase limit on post name ID



On 2013-01-30 at 11:02 Bob Hallissy wrote:
> The current spec says, in the post table format 2.0, that:
>
> Index numbers 32768 through 65535 are reserved for future use.

1) Does anyone have any clue why these were reserved?

2) Does anyone have any objection to removing this sentence?

Now would be a good time to speak up if so...

Bob


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20130211/fb4fad0f/attachment.html>