[MPEG-OTSPEC] comments wrt wide glyph ID proposal

[William_J_G Overington]

Peter Constable wrote as follows.


> But COLR might not be too difficult. So, we think it’s worth 
> discussing options:

    1.  Postpone for future consideration.
    2.  Create a new major version — i.e., a new table tag — to design a 
table with wide glyph IDs (it wouldn’t need to support narrow IDs).
    3.  Create a minor version enhancement (COLR v2) that maintains 
backward compatibility while adding wide support.
I opine that option 1 Postpone for future consideration is best avoided 
if that is possible. If nothing is done now, then when will it be done? 
is often a good question to ask.

If option 3 is implemented, would that adversely affect implementing 
option 2 at a later date?

Is it possible to implement both option 3 and option 2 at the same time, 
perhaps with a later "activation date" for option 2, yet such that the 
technical specification is available early? The reason that I suggest 
this approach is that manufacturers of fontmaking software will need 
time to implement the changes, so it would be better to have the 
specifications available as soon as possible so that manufacturers can, 
if they so choose, schedule the implementation work.

William Overington

Tuesday 12 December 2023



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20231212/773f2850/attachment.html>