Soliciting comments on draft OFF amendment

[Ken Lunde]

With regard to the recommendation for GID+1, Dave Crossland wrote:

>> mapping from U+00A0 is probably best left as being optional, but I have no
>> objections to adding it
> 
> I think its a good idea - a lot of fonts have different 0020 vs 00A0
> widths, which is a bug imho

Given that two people thus far support mapping U+0020 and U+00A0 to GID+1, I support this as well. Of course, this pertains only to 'cmap' subtable formats that support Unicode. Given the de facto nature of Unicode, I'll let others chime in about whether this should affect other 'cmap' subtable formats in a non-Unicode fashion.

But, I wonder whether this should be a different recommendation, or better, additionally stated in a different recommendation that goes from the other direction, meaning that it is a recommendation for U+0020 and U+00A0 that states that OFFs that support Unicode should include mappings for both U+0020 and U+00A0, and further stating that both Unicode values should map to GID+1.

Regards...

-- Ken

P.S. Is anyone besides be very much looking forward to Tom Grace's return to the office on September 2nd? ;-)