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

[Behdad Esfahbod]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 10:30 AM Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com> wrote:

> Someone _*could*_ implement hinting, though there’s no certainty of
> getting exactly the same rasterized result. But there are different
> TrueType rasterization implementations that don’t produce exactly the same
> rasterized results, if nothing else because different implementation use
> different over-sampling and filtering techniques. It seems by the same
> argument, then, that ‘glyf’ and related tables should be removed from OFF… _
> *If*_ it were assumed that interoperability of the font file format
> requires that different implementations can produce exactly the same
> rasterized results. That hasn’t been assumed for the past 20+ years, so how
> is it now suddenly a problem for interoperability?
>

No. These are very different situations.

TrueType hinting is *specified* to a *lot* of detail. That final
rasterization will be different is a fact of computer graphics.

That's not what I'm talking about. CFF hinting is COMPLETELY unspecified
currently.

Plus. As I pointed out originally: CFF/CFF2's mere claim to superiority,
ie. *why* they need to exist at all, is a claim to superiority of hinting,
made by Adobe. But Adobe also maintains that no other hinting
implementation is adequate. As such, the CFF/CFF2 in OFF are unnecessary
and as such I suggest being either removed or made complete.

Same does not apply to glyf table as it's by far the most common format
used by fonts, and is specified in detail enough to produce acceptable
rasterizers by over a dozen entities over the decades. The same cannot be
said of CFF.

But yes, same argument with script shaping: without it OFF is incomplete.
Now you can argue that even with it implementations would differ because
any added shaping specs would be incomplete in level of detail.  That would
be reason to make them more complete, not remove them.

In the case of CFF/CFF2, they are not *necessary* for a fully functional
font format.


>
>
> *From:* Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at behdad.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 8, 2020 9:18 AM
> *To:* Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com>
> *Cc:* Dave Crossland <dcrossland at google.com>; 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)
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 10:09 AM Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com> wrote:
>
> You haven’t answered my question: What problem in industry are you trying
> to solve?
>
>
>
> The problem that no one can implement CFF/CFF2 with hinting if they are
> not Adobe!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at behdad.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 8, 2020 9:07 AM
> *To:* Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com>
> *Cc:* Dave Crossland <dcrossland at google.com>; 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)
>
>
>
> 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/
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbehdad.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C7d40b065545047e4ab1808d86ba5babd%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637377706836405651%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=d46I0fMxoA4A%2Fia33%2BB6M3MkJS1%2FHxopuxo2hW1Ff50%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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%7C7d40b065545047e4ab1808d86ba5babd%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637377706836415643%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=f1ulMDo3yDuvt3WBLi0uig8CuWbnjkcfFDdKQ4MkDaE%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/b634fe48/attachment-0001.html>