<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
</head>
<body>
Thomas,<br>
<br>
We're on the same wavelength. That is pretty much what I meant by the "baby steps" approach. In other words, 1) status quo for font developers; 2) this group acknowledges the ineffectiveness of (and the security issues associated with) the DSIG table; and 3)
Microsoft addresses the issues surrounding the DSIG table. While Microsoft is touching their code, it'd be fantastic (for customers) if they were to enable OTCs (CFF-flavor TTCs).<br>
<br>
Regards...<br>
<br>
-- Ken<br>
<br>
<span style="color:black">-----Original Message----- <br>
<b>From:</b> Thomas Phinney [tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu]<br>
<b>Received:</b> Wednesday, 14 May 2014, 18:55<br>
<b>To:</b> Ken Lunde [lunde@adobe.com]<br>
<b>CC:</b> mpeg-OTspec@yahoogroups.com [mpeg-OTspec@yahoogroups.com]<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [mpeg-OTspec] Proposed update of the 'head' table flags<br>
<br>
</span>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Speaking wearing my font developer hat for a moment, if leaving out DSIGs breaks things in current MS apps I would not stop including DSIGs for some years to come. Even after new versions stop
depending on it....</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Yes, it was weird to require an unverified DSIG. But we shouldn't punish users for an MS decision.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Ken Lunde <a href="mailto:lunde@adobe.com">
lunde@adobe.com</a> [mpeg-OTspec] <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mpeg-OTspec@yahoogroups.com" target="_blank">mpeg-OTspec@yahoogroups.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:1px #ccc solid; padding-left:1ex">
<u></u>
<div style="background-color:#fff"><span> </span>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p>Thomas,</p>
<div class=""><br>
<br>
You wrote:<br>
<br>
> What would it mean to deprecate the current DSIG, exactly? Would we be telling people not to put it in fonts? Or telling consumers not to rely on it being present, or not to rely on it being meaningful, or...?<br>
<br>
</div>
All of the above, I think. ;-)<br>
<br>
There are fonts out there with valid DSIG tables, and some with "stub" (empty) ones. Given the persistence of fonts, updating fonts to remove the DSIG table would be an ordeal (and a half). Going forward, font developers should not include DSIG tables, but
part of that message needs to be coupled with Microsoft changing their products to not depend on the presence of the DSIG table.<br>
<br>
It sounds like a "baby steps" approach to deprecation will be necessary.<br>
<br>
I think that for font developers, the current practice of production should continue until the infrastructure no longer depends on the DSIG table.<br>
<br>
Microsoft then has work to do. :-)<br>
<br>
-- Ken<br>
<br>
<p></p>
</div>
<div style="color:#fff; min-height:0"></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="verdana, sans-serif" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span style="line-height:18px">On paper books and ebooks: “</span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0); white-space:pre-wrap">Paper books are the packaging that books come in</span><span style="line-height:18px">.”</span><span style="line-height:18px"><br>
</span><span style="border:0px; margin:0px; padding:0px">—Cory Doctorow</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>