Re: New version of the WOFF2 spec posted

Love the pseudo-code. Use of semi-colons to end statements seems
inconsistent.

The new glyph decoding is much more readable to my eye at least. Couple of
very minor issues:

There is a typo nControus (in glyph decoding)

Empty and composite glyphs specify nContour value but simple does not;
maybe add the (nCounter > 0) to first statement for decoding simple glyphs?

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <
Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com> wrote:

>  Hello WG,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your comments, please see [1] with the following changes:
>
> -          255UInt16 – replaced table-based data type explanation with
> the pseudo-code, removed “MUST be consistent” as a conformance statement
> making it a plain English;
>
> -          Edited the subclause 5.1 adding details about glyph
> reconstruction process for empty, simple and composite glyphs. Clarified
> bbox calculation for simple and composite glyphs, added new conformance
> requirements for empty glyph;
>
> -          In subclause 5.3 – added a new conformance requirement to
> reject font file if encoded ‘loca’ table length is not equal to zero or if
> the encoded original size doesn’t match the calculated size;
>
> -          Edited the “Changes” appendix to add all of the above and
> updated the CVS version reference. J
>
>
>
> Please review the changes and let me know if I missed / misspelled
> anything.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Vlad
>
>
>
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/
>
>
>