<div dir="ltr">Terence,<div><br></div><div>You keep repeating yourself. I know you designed rasterizers in the 1990s. Thanks for sharing your view.</div><div><br></div><div>Saying "TrueType hinting is also under-specified" is called "whataboutism". It shouldn't be used as a way to turn down a proposal.</div><div><br></div><div>The hinting *philosophy* being available is very different from hinting algorithm being specified.</div><div><br></div><div>I repeat: CFF/CFF2 hinting is unspecified and as demonstrated no implementation other than Adobe's is deemed acceptable by Adobe itself. This is very easy to understand: without specifying how to interpret hints, it's impossibly unlikely to come up with multiple "satisfactory" hinted rasterizers.</div><div><br></div><div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">behdad<br><a href="http://behdad.org/" target="_blank">http://behdad.org/</a></div></div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 1:24 AM Terence Dowling <<a href="mailto:terry@tdowling.com">terry@tdowling.com</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>
<div>On 10/7/2020 14:50, Behdad Esfahbod
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 3:35 PM Levantovsky,
Vladimir <<a href="mailto:Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com" 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></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.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> This frequently repeated argument for the removal of CFF/CFF2 is
lack of specification for how hints are used. <br>
</p>
<p>I'm confused by this because it seems quite clear that
rasterization issues are not part of the MPEG-OTSPEC area of
responsibility.</p>
<br>
<p>The same suggestion could be made to remove TrueType
instructions because they are completely ignored or interpreted in
unspecified ways by major implementations. <br>
</p>
<p>I'm a retired rasterizer implementer with production code
experience for both TrueType and CFF. A skill clearly
underrepresented in these discussions.<br>
</p>
<p> Terence Dowling<br>
</p>
<br>
<p> P.S. It is worth noting that the hinting structure and general
information philosophy was publicly documented in 1990 <br>
</p>
<p>see: <a href="https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/devnet/font/pdfs/T1_SPEC.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/devnet/font/pdfs/T1_SPEC.pdf</a>
<br>
</p>
<p>It has been public for about 30 years.</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>mpeg-otspec mailing list
<a href="mailto:mpeg-otspec@lists.aau.at" target="_blank">mpeg-otspec@lists.aau.at</a>
<a href="https://lists.aau.at/mailman/listinfo/mpeg-otspec" target="_blank">https://lists.aau.at/mailman/listinfo/mpeg-otspec</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
mpeg-otspec mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:mpeg-otspec@lists.aau.at" target="_blank">mpeg-otspec@lists.aau.at</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.aau.at/mailman/listinfo/mpeg-otspec" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.aau.at/mailman/listinfo/mpeg-otspec</a><br>
</blockquote></div>