<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Oct 7, 2020, 6:55 PM Behdad Esfahbod <<a href="mailto:behdad@behdad.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">behdad@behdad.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 4:48 PM Dave Crossland <<a href="mailto:dcrossland@google.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">dcrossland@google.com</a>> wrote:</div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 6:45 PM Behdad Esfahbod <<a href="mailto:behdad@behdad.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">behdad@behdad.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 4:37 PM Dave Crossland <<a href="mailto:dcrossland@google.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">dcrossland@google.com</a>> wrote:</div></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 5:51 PM Behdad Esfahbod <<a href="mailto:behdad@behdad.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">behdad@behdad.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 3:35 PM Levantovsky, Vladimir <<a href="mailto:Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">On Wednesday, August 19, 2020 12:40 AM Behdad Esfahbod wrote:<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">Moreover, I suggest CFF and CFF2 be removed from OFF. The claim-to-superiority of CFF format is: 1. better hinting, and 2. better compression. Re better-hinting, the interpretation of CFF hints is NOT specified
anywhere. Adobe's code in FreeType is what we have. Re better compression, the existence of CFF in OpenType / OFF is partly why adding quadratic beziers to glyf table has continually not happened.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">In reality, CFF only serves Adobe, who sells their rasterizer to MS / Apple platforms and serves only Adobe. Another example of Adobe abusing the "open" ideology / terminology is the Noto CJK / Adobe-equivalent.
It's NOT open-source by any means. The sources are not available. That's something that I pointed out directly to Ken Lunde at one of his Unicode Conference presentations. Adobe is clearly aware of it. And I couldn't fix when I was at Google.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">Rip the bandaid. Make open standards truly open.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">With my SC29/WG3 member representative hat on (and _<i>not</i>_ serving in my capacity as a chair of this AHG) I object to this proposal. With many thousands
of fonts currently deployed, and at least two (or more) different implementations available – this proposal, if considered, would do more harm than good.</span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Okay let me narrow down the proposal to removing CFF2 only.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I object to the proposal to remove CFF2, because while few CFF2 VF fonts are available, CFF2 is now widely implemented by font engines</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It's in OpenType. I don't see why it needs to be in OFF from a forward-looking point of view.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>CFF2 needs to be in OFF because then it is definitively clear of rightholder friction, allowing it to be widely adopted. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No one has suggested *why* it needs to be widely adopted. You can't just say "no". I argued that OFF is *incomplete* currently.</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Vlad brought up the counter argument that much existing usage depends on CFF being in OFF. You accepted this but then argue that not many cff2 fonts exist compared to cff1, or to TTF VF. But I don't think this is relevant, because fonts themselves are only one piece of the puzzle. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>Sooooooo either CFF/CFF2 should be removed, *or* it be added as a work item that CFF/CFF2 hinting be documented as part of OFF.</div><div><br></div><div>Separately part of the same proposal was to document script-shaping as part of OFF; so I expect that to be added as a new work item proposal as well.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>The many users of harfbuzz, that you tout, are doing so because OFF has cleared a path for that adoption. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't see how that argument holds. HarfBuzz implements ...</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It's an argument about adoption, not implementation.</div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote></div></div></div>