[MPEG-OTSPEC] comments wrt wide glyph ID proposal

[Behdad Esfahbod]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 5:39 AM Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at behdad.org> wrote:

> *GPOS/GSUB:*
>>
>> It appears the proposal doesn’t yet include wide versions for common
>> table formats that will be required (e.g., coverage). These will, of
>> course, be needed
>>
>
> I'm surprised by that. But you are right, them seem missing from the PDF
> document. @Liam Quin <liam at fromoldbooks.org>
>
> The proposal is:
>
>   https://github.com/harfbuzz/boring-expansion-spec/issues/30
>

Better link:
https://github.com/harfbuzz/boring-expansion-spec/blob/main/beyond-64k.md#coverage--classdef-formats-3--4
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20231212/4e95af44/attachment-0001.html>