[mpeg-OTspec] Updated 4th edition working draft available for review

Peter Constable petercon at microsoft.com
Fri Mar 31 18:34:49 CEST 2017


Can you clarify for me what specifically about which part of the wording concerns you.

I think I’ve stayed consistent with what the spec was already saying about DFLT script tag in general, and only stated it (I think) more clearly:

“The 'DFLT' Script table should be used if there is not an explicit entry for the script being formatted.”

The key change has been to relax the constraint that LangSysCount “must be equal to 0”. “A font is permitted…” is implied if that constraint has been relaxed.

Is this concern with this?
“An application should use a 'DFLT' script table … if the text does not have a specific script (for example, it contains only symbols or punctuation).”
If so, I could work on that.


From: John Hudson [mailto:john at tiro.ca]
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 6:56 AM
To: Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com>
Cc: Martin Hosken <martin_hosken at sil.org>; Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com>; mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpeg-OTspec] Updated 4th edition working draft available for review

Peter, I'm a bit concerned that this wording makes some assumptions about how implementations use the DFLT script tag, without those implementations being specified anywhere. [Well, nothing new in that: this is true of OpenType Layout in general.] So, for example, I've seen DFLT used by Adobe to process script=common characters such as the Indic danda and double danda from the Unicode Devanagari block, which are also used by other Indian scripts. If one wanted to make a pan-Indic font with script-specific forms of danda, the only way to do so within that implementation would be via language system under the DFLT script tag. Of course, the case can be made that such an implementation is wrong, but sans an implementation spec, I wonder about the wisdom of specifying constraints in the format spec.


Sent from my iPad

On Mar 31, 2017, at 5:48 AM, Peter Constable petercon at microsoft.com<mailto:petercon at microsoft.com> [mpeg-OTspec] <mpeg-OTspec-noreply at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec-noreply at yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
A font is permitted to have a 'DFLT' script table with non-default language system tables, and an application
        may use features associated with one of these if the the 'DFLT' script table is applicable (no script table
        is present for the specific script), and if one of the particular language systems is specified. Applications
        are not required to support use of a non-default language system table that is associated with 'DFLT' script,
        however, and fonts should not depend on this configuration being supported.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20170331/5a2fe2a6/attachment.html>

More information about the mpeg-otspec mailing list