Re: WOFF 2.0: Known Table Tags Proposal

Thanks David.  Your code may be buggy with tags that have space in them.
 It doesn't make sense that you didn't find any "cvt " or "CFF ".  Other
than that, I suggest dropping EPAR as well as anything that shouldn't be in
a final shipped product (VTT, etc).

Really, lets just keep this to the union of OpenType spec, Apple TrueType,
Graphite, and color fonts.

Cheers,
behdad


On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 2:05 PM, David Kuettel <kuettel@google.com> wrote:

> 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?
>
>
>