[MPEG-OTSPEC] format field names

[Peter Constable]

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20240330/0ad6dc52/attachment.htm>