RE: New version of the WOFF2 spec posted

Done, thank you Rod! New revision is up for your viewing pleasure.

> Love the pseudo-code. Use of semi-colons to end statements seems inconsistent.
This how you can tell that the pseudo-code is different from a real code! ☺. Don’t tell me I have too many semi-colons now (because that piece is written in Pascal! :D)

Cheers,
Vlad



From: Roderick Sheeter [mailto:rsheeter@google.com]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 4:25 PM
To: Levantovsky, Vladimir
Cc: w3c-webfonts-wg (public-webfonts-wg@w3.org)
Subject: 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<mailto: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. ☺

Please review the changes and let me know if I missed / misspelled anything.

Thank you,
Vlad

[1] http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/