- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 19:08:26 +0200
- To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- CC: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
Hello John, Friday, October 18, 2013, 6:27:11 PM, you wrote: > On 18/10/13 9:12 AM, Chris Lilley wrote: >> Rather than modify @font-face, I suspect the correct approach would be >> to define a fragment identifier syntax (the part of a url after the #) >> that points into a TTC. > Jonathan and I discussed this briefly during the meeting in Portland. As > I recall, the intended mechanism is indeed to enumerate fonts within a > TTC, but at present any support for TTCs seems to access only the first > font. Perhaps Jonathan has more details. Accessing only the first font is a reasonable fallback if someone references a TTC without indicating which font they want. I would expect a standardised fragment syntax for TTC to use that as the default behaviour. >> So a TTC is a single file containing multiple sfnt streams. What is >> the official defining document? > A TTC is a sort of composite sfnt in which one or more tables are > typically shared by more than one font, with offsets recorded in a > TTCHeader table. The TTC spec is embedded within the OT spec: > http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/otff.htm Thanks. So the entire TTC is an sfnt (specifically, an entire TTC can be encoded as a single WOFF?) > Most commonly, the technology is used for CJK fonts sharing a single > glyf table with different cmap entries for roman and italic Latin > subsets. As another example, we built Cambria Regular and Cambria Math > as a TTC with a shared glyf table and different cmap, OS/2, OTL tables > and, of course, name tables. Interesting (and I saw the request for standardizing Math tables). I was previously only aware of TTC used for CJK fonts, and I understood a typical use case to be 'mostly the same' Japanese and Simplified Chinese fonts with distinct glyphs for those code points where Unicode unification at the character level required different language-specific glyphs. I may well have misunderstood, though. -- Best regards, Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 17:08:27 UTC