Re: WOFF 2.0: Known Table Tags Proposal

At the end of the day, this doesn't matter much, we are talking saving,
say, 20 bytes, for a rare font.  I think you should just fix a set and move
on.


On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:51 PM, David Kuettel <kuettel@google.com> wrote:

> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>