[MPEG-OTSPEC] format field names

[Behdad Esfahbod]

I personally support this change.

Thank you Peter,

behdad
http://behdad.org/


On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 11:04 AM Peter Constable via mpeg-otspec <
mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at> wrote:

> I’d like to hear other’s opinions:
>
>
>
> While preparing revisions for OpenType 1.9.1 and proposed revisions to OFF
> 5th Edn WD, I noticed in sections for OT Layout tables that some tables
> that have a format field have a field name that reflects the table it is
> contained in.
>
>
>
>    - GPOS lookup subtables: “posFormat”
>    - GSUB lookup subtables: “substFormat”
>    - Coverage tables: “coverageFormat”
>    - CaretValue tables: “caretValueFormat”
>    - Anchor tables: “anchorFormat”
>    - BaseCoord tables: “baseCoordFormat”
>
>
>
> This convention isn’t followed elsewhere in the spec:
>
>    - not in CFF / CFF2 FontDICTSelect
>    - not in cmap subtables
>    - not in COLR Paint, ClipList or ClipBox tables
>    - not in DSIG SignatureRecord
>    - not in ItemVariationStore or in DeltaSetIndexMap tables
>
>
>
> I’m inclined to rename fields like “posFormat” to simply “format”, and
> have started to implement that in draft content for OT 1.9.1
> <https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/opentype/otspec191alpha/changes#version-191>.
> But this is nothing more than wanting consistency—it’s not as though having
> redundant info in the field names creates confusion.
>
>
>
> Anyone with a strong opinion for making these field name changes, or for _
> *not*_ making these changes?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
> _______________________________________________
> mpeg-otspec mailing list
> mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at
> https://lists.aau.at/mailman/listinfo/mpeg-otspec
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20240401/568652fc/attachment-0001.htm>