[MPEG-OTSPEC] Hints, TT and CFF (was: Re: Proposal to make OFF complete)

[Behdad Esfahbod]

Just to complement my argument: to anyone who claims that CFF/CFF2 hinting
being unspecified is *by design*, let me make two points:

- Hinting, *by definition*, is to optimize rasterization of fonts on
constrained devices. It is to *improve on* what would otherwise be rendered
by generic algorithms. So, to suggest that hinting can be done by a generic
algorithm is an oxymoron.

- Indeed, as evidence of the above: when Google was commissioning Noto Sans
CJK from Adobe, the Adobe team insisted that they will only do that if
Google also pays to liberate the Adobe CFF rasterizer to be integrated into
FreeType. Because they deemed their CFF fonts *unusable* without the Adobe
rasterizer.

Does that leave any doubt that CFF only benefits Adobe? What font designer
hints fonts to unknown hinting-interpretter anyways?

behdad
http://behdad.org/


On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 8:50 PM Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at behdad.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:32 PM Dave Crossland <dcrossland at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020, 4:08 PM Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at behdad.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 7:50 AM Dave Crossland <dcrossland at google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Haha, awesome!
>>>>
>>>> I must admit my ignorance with regards to CFF2, but, isn't one of the
>>>> major features of CFF2 that hints can vary?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Major in what way? Yes, CFF2 hints can vary. Also yes, TT-based
>>> varfonts' hints can also vary.
>>>
>>
>> Major in that Ken's fonts don't take advantage of it, and yet a "business
>> case" for CFF and CFF2 that I've heard is that rendering is superior
>> because of the hinting model..
>>
>> Ignoring the major problem though: that CFF/CFF2 hinting interpretation
>>> is FULLY UNSPECIFIED. So varying or not is moot.
>>>
>>
>> I'm eager to hear your thoughts on the thread where this was discussed,
>> as Terence I believe proposed that TTF hinting is also unspecified.
>>
>
> I'm not going to reply to Terence's email because it qualifies for
> "whataboutism". That is, TTF hinting might be underspecified. But that
> doesn't detract from my point, that CFF/CFF2 hinting is FULLY unspecified.
> That sounds more like Eric's reply though. Terence's goes into CVT details
> that I find wrong / irrelevant.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20200917/d63c59d8/attachment.html>