W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > October to December 2015

RE: Comments on the WOFF 2.0 Working Draft 9 October 2015

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 16:49:53 +0000
To: Roderick Sheeter <rsheeter@google.com>
CC: Frédéric WANG <fred.wang@free.fr>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>, "w3c-webfonts-wg (public-webfonts-wg@w3.org)" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <521d820d3fe448da93590b61ba1dca51@wob-maildb-03.agfamonotype.org>
Hi Rod,

Thank you for checking, the spec seems fine when I look online (lines 844-852). The proposal was to replace a set of parenthesis  with right angle brackets to indicate the integer truncation of division operation – I am not sure if I like this new notation but figured I’d give it a try.

The other option is declare somewhere in the beginning of the spec that all operations follow “C” language notation (this was another general theme in Frederic’s comments). Same for replacing (1 << 8) since we are using bitwise operation without ever formally defining what it is (I know, everyone should guess it’s C-like notation). However, in this particular case his comment was that the OFF/OpenType specs define these flags by bit numbers so it is easier to follow if references to flags are consistent in all specs.

Thank you,

From: Roderick Sheeter [mailto:rsheeter@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 11:32 AM
To: Levantovsky, Vladimir
Cc: Frédéric WANG; www-font@w3.org; w3c-webfonts-wg (public-webfonts-wg@w3.org)
Subject: Re: Comments on the WOFF 2.0 Working Draft 9 October 2015

In the line 844/852 diff it looks like something unfortunate happened to the character encoding. The right hand side - 4 * ⌊(numGlyphs + 31) / 32⌋. - looks off.

l find (1 << 8) clearer than (bit 8). If we are going to say "bit 8" did we define somewhere how to interpret that or is there a standard interpretation?

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com<mailto:Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com>> wrote:
Dear Frédéric,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the WOFF2 spec and providing your comments, please see the disposition notes inline. The most recent version of the Editor’s Draft WOFF2 specification is available at http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/ and the implemented changes are at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/Overview.html.diff?r1=1.69;r2=1.70;f=h

With kind regards,

From: Frédéric WANG [mailto:fred.wang@free.fr<mailto:fred.wang@free.fr>]
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 4:20 PM
To: www-font@w3.org<mailto:www-font@w3.org>
Subject: Comments on the WOFF 2.0 Working Draft 9 October 2015

Dear WebFonts Working Group,

Please find below my personal comments after a first reading of the WOFF 2.0 specification (without any attempts to implement it). I hope they will be helpful.


Frédéric Wang

The input font file may contain a number of various font data tables described in the clause 5 of the [OFF] specification.
Could you please update the reference link to use edition 3 of the Open Font Format specification now that it is released? Especially since the new MATH table is mentioned in the "Known Table Tags".

[VL] Accepted, the link was updated to point to the 2015 (3rd edition) of the ISO document.

File header with basic font type and version, along with offsets to metadata and private data blocks.
An optional block of extended metadata, represented in XML format and compressed for storage in the WOFF2 file.
There are new lines after "private" and after "compressed". I'm not sure whether it's on purpose.
[VL] Edited to remove them.

The pseudo-code describing how to read the 255UInt16 format is presented below:
I think it should be mentioned that this is "C-like" pseudo-code to make clear that bitwise operators <<, & are used.
[VL] Accepted

In general maybe it should probably be said somewhere in the introduction that the "0x..." notations used everywhere in this specification correspond to hexadecimal values.
[VL] Accepted

An encoder should choose shorter encodings, and must be consistent in choice of encoding for the same value, as this will tend to compress better.
I have the impression that the specification should explicitly provide a way to get a shortest encoding. For example some pseudo code describing the following transformation:

0 ≤ value < lowestUCode ---> [value on 1 byte]

lowestUCode ≤ value < 2*lowestUCode ---> [oneMoreByteCode1][value - lowestUCode on 1 byte]

2*lowestUCode ≤ value < 2*lowestUCode + 256 ---> [oneMoreByteCode2][value - 2*lowestUCode on one byte]

value ≥ 2*lowestUCode + 256 ---> [wordCode][value on 2 bytes]

Actually, this is probably insignificant but I wonder why [oneMoreByteCode2][code] is not interpreted as lowestUCode + 256 + code so that code1 & code2 encodings won't overlap. Does the encoding proposed in the spec tend to compress better?
[VL] Deferred for WG discussion

Thus, a decoding procedure for a UIntBase128 is: start with value = 0. Consume a byte, setting value = old value times 128 + (byte bitwise-and 127). Repeat last step until the most significant bit of byte is false.
I personally feel that this paragraph would be better presented with pseudo-code.
An encoder must not allow this to happen and must produce shortest possible encoding.
Here too I believe there should be some simple pseudo-code to explain the canonical & optimal way to write the 32bits of the integer on at most five 7-bit blocks (even if that's obvious once you think about it).
[VL] Deferred for WG discussion

The interpretation of the WOFF2 Header is the same as the WOFF Header in [WOFF1].
Maybe it should be highlighted that the only new field with respect to WOFF version 1 is totalCompressedSize?
[VL] Accepted

The font directory section consist of
[VL] Fixed, thank you

Whether a table tag is encoded with a known table tag or explicitly including the four-byte tag has no semantic significance; it is simply a choice of encoding intended to improve compression efficiency.
The known table flag values should not be relied upon in determining the presence of the transformed tables, it is feasible that e.g. the glyf table can be represented in the table directory with either flag = 10 and no tag, or with flag = 63 and 'glyf' tag that follows.
I wonder why the encoder is not forced to use the known flag when it is available for a table? Of course the size gain is negligible and the table directory is not compressed anyway, but that would be consistent with other places of the spec where it tries to get the optimal encoding when possible.
[VL] Deferred for WG discussion

if the table is transformed, then the version number of the applied transform is defined by the two most significatn flag bits
[VL] Fixed, thank you

The decompressed and reconstructed table data MUST be stored in the format specified by the [OFF] specification. Each reconstructed table directory entry MUST contain a valid 'checkSum' value, the decoder MUST recalculate the checkSum value for each decoded table. Also, due to modifying transforms applied to glyf and loca tables, the decoder MUST recalculate the checkSumAdjustmentglyf value of the entire font and MUST store the updated value in the head table.
"checkSumAdjustmentglyf" should be "checkSumAdjustment", I guess.
[VL] Fixed, thank you

I find that this paragraph is a bit confusing. It seems to suggest that only the checkSumAdjustment may change and that it is only 'due to modifying transforms applied to glyf and loca tables'. At the same time it seems to ask the decoders to recalculate all the checksums without any verification for possible unchanged checksums.
My understanding is that only transformed tables that can not be reconstructed identically to the original will have the checksum invalidated (i.e. 'glyf' and 'loca' but not 'hmtx' or other tables). And that in general the overall checkSumAdjustment will be invalidated. Is that correct?
[VL] Yes, this is correct.

The possible binary changes are better explained in the "The WOFF 2.0 transformations applied to certain tables...." paragraph below that one, maybe this section should be reordered a bit or this decoder+checksum paragraph should point to the paragraph below?

Why isn't the decoder asked to verify the checksum that are guaranteed to be preserved and to just recalculate everything? Is it a requirement of the OFF specification when bit 11 of the 'flags' field of the head is set?
[VL] Deferred for WG discussion
The total number of bytes in bboxBitmap is equal to 4 * ((numGlyphs + 31) / 32).
Again, C integer-division is implicit here. I would suggest writing "4 * ⌊ (numGlyphs + 31) / 32 ⌋" or even better if you want to enhance rendering in some web engines and assistive technologies:

<math><semantics><mrow><mn>4</mn><mrow><mo>⌊</mo><mfrac><mrow><mtext>numGlyphs</mtext><mo>+</mo><mn>31</mn></mrow><mn>32</mn></mfrac><mo>⌋</mo></mrow></mrow><annotation encoding="text/plain">4 * ⌊ (numGlyphs + 31) / 32 ⌋</annotation></semantics></math>

4⌊numGlyphs+3132⌋4 * ⌊ (numGlyphs + 31) / 32 ⌋

[VL] I modified the notation to reflect the nature of implicit integer division.
Upon reading the Transformed glyf Table , the decoding process iterates one glyph at a time. For each glyph, it reads zero or more bytes from each of the streams referenced in the Transformed glyf Table .
There are extra spaces before the comma and the period.
[VL] Fixed, thank you

Note that the Open Font Format (and TTF and OpenType) specifications use MORE_COMPONENTS and WE_HAVE_INSTRUCTIONS (without the FLAG_ prefix). Again, C bit shifting operator is used without prior mention. As a comparison, the font specifications use "bit 0", "bit 1" etc
[VL] Fixed, thank you

If the hmtx table transform is both applicable and desired, the encoder MUST check that leftSideBearing values match the xMin values of the glyph bounding box for every glyph in a font file and, if the conditions are met for each of the proportional or monospaced glyph runs the encoder MUST set hmtx transform version number to "1", MUST eliminate the corresponding array from the hmtx table and MUST set the appropriate Flags bits.
I guess "leftSideBearing" must be understood as lsb[] and/or leftsideBearing[] ; and that "desired" means "desired by the encoder".
[VL] lsb[] and leftSideBearing[] here are the references to identically named arrays of the hmtx table (http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/hmtx.htm). Desirability of transform will most likely be determined by the outside context, e.g. one may want to apply all applicable transforms when encoding a full font file but skip the transforms and improve performance if a small font subset is encoded as WOFF2 and optimizing already reduced tables doesn’t make much difference in terms of compression efficiency.

Received on Tuesday, 3 November 2015 17:08:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 3 November 2015 17:08:06 UTC