[MPEG-OTSPEC] Removal of the CFF and CF2 from OFF standard (was: Proposal to make OFF complete)

[Behdad Esfahbod]

I repeat myself:

CFF/CFF2 should either be deprecated & eventually removed, OR the hinting
algorithm needs to be specified.  Because currently it is *impossible* to
implement them in a way that Adobe / others deem satisfactory.

behdad
http://behdad.org/


On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 10:04 AM Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com> wrote:

> Behdad,
>
>
>
> This is not a case of whether to _*add*_ something to OFF; you’re
> proposing _*removing*_ something that’s been part of OFF since the first
> edition. Given that, and given that CFF(2) is supported in several
> platforms and products, this has the appearance of objecting to CFF for the
> sake of objecting. What problem, exactly, are you trying to solve?
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec-bounces at lists.aau.at> * On Behalf Of *Behdad
> Esfahbod
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 8, 2020 8:57 AM
> *To:* Dave Crossland <dcrossland at google.com>
> *Cc:* mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at>
> *Subject:* Re: [MPEG-OTSPEC] Removal of the CFF and CF2 from OFF standard
> (was: Proposal to make OFF complete)
>
>
>
> You seem more focused on objecting than to reason about my proposal or why
> your objection is legitimate. You did NOT even reply to the main issue:
>
>
>
> > Sooooooo either CFF/CFF2 should be removed, *or* it be added as a work
> item that CFF/CFF2 hinting be documented as part of OFF.
>
>
>
> > Separately part of the same proposal was to document script-shaping as
> part of OFF; so I expect that to be added as a new work item proposal as
> well.
>
>
>
> behdad
> http://behdad.org/
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbehdad.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cce38ca89ba3c41760fcd08d86ba2fbbf%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637377695036156319%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Uij6kW3tYMVQhRNBbHq7piU3RhM7macKTlKXZHJvioQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 5:13 PM Dave Crossland <dcrossland at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020, 6:55 PM Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at behdad.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 4:48 PM Dave Crossland <dcrossland at google.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 6:45 PM Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at behdad.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 4:37 PM Dave Crossland <dcrossland at google.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 5:51 PM Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at behdad.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 3:35 PM Levantovsky, Vladimir <
> Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, August 19, 2020 12:40 AM Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
>
> Moreover, I suggest CFF and CFF2 be removed from OFF. The
> claim-to-superiority of CFF format is: 1. better hinting, and 2. better
> compression. Re better-hinting, the interpretation of CFF hints is NOT
> specified anywhere. Adobe's code in FreeType is what we have. Re better
> compression, the existence of CFF in OpenType / OFF is partly why adding
> quadratic beziers to glyf table has continually not happened.
>
>
>
> In reality, CFF only serves Adobe, who sells their rasterizer to MS /
> Apple platforms and serves only Adobe. Another example of Adobe abusing the
> "open" ideology / terminology is the Noto CJK / Adobe-equivalent. It's NOT
> open-source by any means. The sources are not available. That's something
> that I pointed out directly to Ken Lunde at one of his Unicode Conference
> presentations. Adobe is clearly aware of it. And I couldn't fix when I was
> at Google.
>
>
>
> Rip the bandaid. Make open standards truly open.
>
>
>
> With my SC29/WG3 member representative hat on (and _*not*_ serving in my
> capacity as a chair of this AHG) I object to this proposal. With many
> thousands of fonts currently deployed, and at least two (or more) different
> implementations available – this proposal, if considered, would do more
> harm than good.
>
>
>
> Okay let me narrow down the proposal to removing CFF2 only.
>
>
>
> I object to the proposal to remove CFF2, because while few CFF2 VF fonts
> are available, CFF2 is now widely implemented by font engines
>
>
>
> It's in OpenType. I don't see why it needs to be in OFF from a
> forward-looking point of view.
>
>
>
> CFF2 needs to be in OFF because then it is definitively clear of
> rightholder friction, allowing it to be widely adopted.
>
>
>
> No one has suggested *why* it needs to be widely adopted. You can't just
> say "no". I argued that OFF is *incomplete* currently.
>
>
>
> Vlad brought up the counter argument that much existing usage depends on
> CFF being in OFF. You accepted this but then argue that not many cff2 fonts
> exist compared to cff1, or to TTF VF. But I don't think this is relevant,
> because fonts themselves are only one piece of the puzzle.
>
>
>
> Sooooooo either CFF/CFF2 should be removed, *or* it be added as a work
> item that CFF/CFF2 hinting be documented as part of OFF.
>
>
>
> Separately part of the same proposal was to document script-shaping as
> part of OFF; so I expect that to be added as a new work item proposal as
> well.
>
>
>
> The many users of harfbuzz, that you tout, are doing so because OFF has
> cleared a path for that adoption.
>
>
>
> I don't see how that argument holds. HarfBuzz implements ...
>
>
>
> It's an argument about adoption, not implementation.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20201008/0c010c67/attachment-0001.html>