[MPEG-OTSPEC] Some thoughts on the "under consideration" proposals

[suzuki toshiya]

Dear Kanou-san,

I'm interested in the CITPC's evaluation of your proposal.

My understanding of your proposal is something like below;

* Propose no change in the file format itself.
* Propose the "better" behavior of the text input method
software about the font fallback mechanisms.
* Propose the convention(?) to design a TTC/OTC to help
the "better" font fallback mechanism.

If I'm misunderstanding, please correct me.

--

I want to know more about the assumed software which should
be modified to support your proposal. I guess your motivation
is that "even if new font format supporting 24-bit gid is
agreed and amended to the future version of 14496-22,
there might be some delay of the major software to catch it
up, therefore, some alternative is expected for the software
without the support for new font file format".

But, for the software, which is hard to catch up with the
new spec, is it easy for them to catch up with your proposal?

Regards,
mpsuzuki

On 2023/07/05 19:34, kanou wrote:
> Dear Sir,
> 
> I welcome the proposal of >64K expansion in Boring Expansion proposal as an engineer
> of a Japanese font vender, but I need a quick and backward-compatible solution for my friends
> working on Chinese classics and handling >64K text every day.
> 
> I propose a temporary solution that a font collection file including fonts with names like
> BaseFontName#1
> BaseFontName#2
> ...
> which shares the common base font name and each font in the collection has numbered suffix
> can be treated as if there is a single font file named BaseFontName and application programs
> aware of this convention can display a single BaseFontName instead of suffixed font names.
> 
> The full text of my proposal is here:
> https://1drv.ms/b/s!AmmL2QlEO2bqgRnSjsUQM1vhjKcY?e=ylfh3J
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Hiroki Kanou <kanou at iwatafont.co.jp<mailto:kanou at iwatafont.co.jp>>
> Iwata Corporation
>