Re: Reminder - no call this week

WRT existing content, the only one that popped out to me as likely to
invalidate existing files was the comment - which I think was just a
question rather than a request to change - about how 255UInt16 is read:

"I wonder why [oneMoreByteCode2][code] is not interpreted as lowestUCode +
256 + code so that code1 & code2 encodings won't overlap."

The other one that seemed likely to impact existing files was "I wonder why
the encoder is not forced to use the known flag when it is available for a
table?". The reference implementation prefers to use the known table index
already so we could consider this. However, it would strike me as odd to
require this of the encoder unless we require a decoder to reject a file
that failed to use a known table index when it could have.

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <
Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com> wrote:

> Hello WG,
>
>
>
> Just a friendly reminder that I will be traveling tomorrow and we won’t
> have a call this week.
>
> I also want to use this opportunity (and a free time on your hands
> tomorrow J)to ask you to review the recent spec changes and open issues
> in order to discuss them next week. One unresolved item from our F2F
> discussions is a new FF conformance test for invalid hmtx transform (action
> 190, see my comments in my Oct. 26 email) and there are few proposed
> changes that we received as part of the public comments – see my response
> from yesterday, Nov. 2. Some proposed changes were marked as deferred for
> WG discussion, primarily because I want to make sure that none of them is
> going to have an adverse effect either the existing implementation or on
> the existing woff2 content (Rod?).
>
>
>
> Please respond with your comments on the email list, it will speed up and
> make it easier to discuss it during the call next week.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Vlad
>
>
>
>