<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Back in August I sent a message to this list asking whether
variable composites should be in the glyf table instead of in
their own table, making them more like COLR glyphs and thereby
compatible with CFF(2). I also opened boring-expansion-spec issue
<a
href="https://github.com/harfbuzz/boring-expansion-spec/issues/103">#103</a>
as a context for further discussion.</p>
<p>That discussion went fairly well to start with, indicating both
that the separate-table solution is viable and that there has been
and continues to be support for that alternative. Progress stalled
in mid-September, however, not because of any obstacle but because
the discussion just stopped. This was partly because of other
commitments on the part of the people who were talking and because
some answers were needed from people not yet involved.</p>
<p>Anyway, based on the discussion so far, and the fact that there
is at least some independent support for the separate-table
approach, we—that is, Adobe—wants to help ensure that the option
has a chance to be developed and evaluated by the Ad Hoc group.
And because with the ISO process what gets into the working draft
is on auto-pilot towards the eventual specification, we think that
development and evaluation should happen <i>before</i> the
variable components part of the specification is approved.</p>
<p>Of course, in practice this means that we're asking that variable
composites be taken out of the upcoming proposal (and that if it
isn't Adobe will vote not to approve it, and encourage others to
do the same). However, we want to stress that this does not
necessarily mean we will not vote in favor later if further
research indicates that glyf is the better way to go.</p>
<p>Accordingly, we also suggest that how to go about that research
and development, including who needs to be involved, should be one
topic for the meeting next week. <br>
</p>
<p>Skef<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>