Re: WOFF 2.0: Known Table Tags Proposal

To sanity check the initial list, I dumped the tables over a moderate sized
collection of fonts, and then color coded the entries in the spreadsheet to
reflect real-world usage (for this collection).

https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/spreadsheets/d/111MT0l7LOVqotAnMXD4PMOm36jTPSznUigJPfxUYY_0/edit#gid=0

The color coding ranges from dark green, to represent the most commonly
used tables (e.g. name, glyph), to light green, to represent the least
commonly used tables (e.g. JSTF, mort, Silf, etc).

The red entries represent tables that were not found with this collection
(e.g. acnt, fmtx, TeX, etc).

The white (no color) entries represent tables that likely would have been
present in a larger collection (e.g. CFF, cvt, sbix, COLR, etc).


Interestingly enough, the more tables that I look for, the more I find.
 For example, FontLab's Glossary page documents a ton of optional font
tables: http://blog.fontlab.com/info/  e.g. TSI1..TSIV and many more.

Thus, I am wondering if we should revisit the goal of trying to capture all
known / used table tags.  Perhaps, esp. in light of this data, it would be
better to just capture the most commonly used tables today, while ensuring
that the rarely used ones would simply be passed through the WOFF 2.0
encode/decode process...

Thoughts?