Re: WOFF 2.0: Known Table Tags Proposal

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@google.com> wrote:

> 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).
>

Great points Behdad, I should have elaborated in my earlier emails.

The tool that I used was 'showttf' on Linux, which did segfault on some of
the files.  A better tool would have been fonttools, esp. due to the
worldclass support from you. :)

The collection of fonts (while good sized) did not contain PostScript/CFF
fonts.  I need a bigger test set.

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

Regarding the Apple TrueType font tables, given that so few are likely
still in use today, would it make since to whittle down the list a bit?  Or
perhaps again, my test collection was too limited.

>
> 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?
>>
>>
>>
>