OTCs in which a CFF is shared

[Levantovsky, Vladimir]

Hi Sairus,

Both of your proposed changes are incorporated in the text of the ISO/IEC 14496-22 3rd edition. The 'name' table changes (your earlier proposal) have been incorporated as part of the comments during CD ballot cycle and are part of the DIS text, and the most recent changes have been incorporated as part of the DIS ballot comments and are now part of the FDIS text, which is currently under the final approval ballot. The text is current and includes all proposed changes we agreed to in the course of the last year discussion.

The online OT spec version hasn't been fully updated yet, but the ISO text is current and up to date.

Thank you,
Vlad


From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sairus Patel sppatel at adobe.com [mpeg-OTspec]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 7:54 PM
To: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com; opentype-list at indx.co.uk
Subject: [mpeg-OTspec] FW: OTCs in which a CFF is shared




My proposal from last June - see below - addressed a couple of issues related to the ongoing discussions on sharing tables in a Font Collection.

- It doesn't look like the name ID 6 item made it into the latest OT spec: http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/name.htm
- the hmtx item, however, did: http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/hmtx.htm

Vlad & Michelle, if you could help untangle this, I'd appreciate it. I should have kept track of this more closely; sorry about that.

Thanks,
Sairus

From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com> [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 2:25 PM
To: Sairus Patel; mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [mpeg-OTspec] RE: OTCs in which a CFF is shared

Hi Sairus,

Thank you for sending your proposed changes. The changes for Name ID 6 that Josh proposed earlier would in essence take care of your concerns since the whole description is going to be modified and the sentence you want to delete will just be moved with the rest of the text to the Recommendation section. Would you rather have it removed from the Recommendations as well?

As far as 'hmtx' table changes -I am afraid it's too late in this current cycle  to introduce technical changes without giving an opportunity for them to be reviewed by the AHG members. I would consider this for the next round of ballot comments.

Thank you,
Vlad


From:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com> [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 2:17 PM
To: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [mpeg-OTspec] OTCs in which a CFF is shared
I'd like to propose two tweaks to accommodate OTCs in which a CFF is shared among fonts:

The hmtx spec says:
> In CFF OpenType fonts, every glyph's advanceWidth as recorded in the 'hmtx' table must be identical to its x width in the 'CFF ' table.

[proposed replacement:] An OpenType engine must use the advanceWidths in the hmtx table for the advances of a CFF OpenType font, even though the CFF table specifies its own glyph widths. Note that fonts in a Font Collection which share a CFF may specify different advanceWidths in their hmtx table for a particular glyph index.

The name ID 6 spec says:
> In CFF OpenType fonts, these two name strings, when translated to ASCII, must also be identical to the font name as stored in the CFF's Name INDEX.

[proposed: simply delete the above sentence.]

Apologies for this last minute request; I recently got back from sabbatical. If it's too late for this round of changes, please consider them for the next round.

Thanks,
Sairus





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20150409/1d299526/attachment.html>