- From: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 20:25:53 +0000
- To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- CC: "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org Group" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Hi all. Sorry, I missed this thread and am just getting caught up. I will ask around here quickly and try to bring something useful to the meeting shortly. If not, then soon after. -C On Feb 10, 2014, at 11:30 AM, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com> wrote: > Raph wrote: > >> The other use case is packaging CJK fonts specialized to different >> locales (simplified Chinese, traditional Chinese, and Japanese) in the >> same font file. > > I believe a more common CJK use for TTCs involves styling of Latin subsets: the shared glyf table contains both roman and italic Latin designs, differentiated via divergent cmap and name tables. This, of course, means that the huge quantity of CJK character glyphs do not need to be duplicated in separate fonts for Latin subset styles. > > The same thing can ostensibly be handled using the OTL <ital> feature, but I am not sure how widely this is supported in software. > > While I think Raph's analysis of the complexity and risk of TTC support in WOFF makes a lot of sense, I'm cautious about making this decision without more input, especially from Adobe. There's been a push recently to make TTC compatible with CFF flavour fonts, mostly driven by Adobe, so clearly they have some interest in the format (despite having previously registered the OTL features that would seem to make TTCs for CJK unnecessary), so I think it would be a good idea to find out from them what sort of use cases they envisage and whether they see a need for TTC support in WOFF. > > Christopher, is this something on which you can comment? > > JH >
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2014 20:26:22 UTC