Re: Agenda, action items and suggested WOFF changes

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Sylvain Galineau
<sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
> But if the vendor, in some cases, allows you to convert your TTFs, why do we
> need to decide which embedding bit(s) allow this conversion ? We're adding
> an extra step for font and tool vendors for what exact benefit ? What if a
> font vendor like Adobe want to allow thousands of existing customers to convert
> some of their catalog to web use but they don't have the right bits set currently?
> Should their future tool prevent their customers from doing that ?
>
> I don't mean to sound like this makes no sense. It's clear that it does to you
> guys but I'm missing something.

That's why existing fonts are not treated as having the bit at all,
it's just a reserved bit. The bit being zero only has meaning if the
font has a new version of the OS/2 table, signifying that the unset
bit has meaning. (Or if a new version of the OS/2 table is
unacceptable, we'd have to use two bits.)

Regards,
-- 
"I've discovered the worst place to wander while arguing on a
hands-free headset." — http://xkcd.com/736/

Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 03:31:42 UTC