On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir < Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com> wrote: > It's actually a great idea. > That could have been handy. As speced, the tags are grouped by font specification (e.g. OpenType, TrueType, Graphite, etc), proposal below. https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/spreadsheets/d/111MT0l7LOVqotAnMXD4PMOm36jTPSznUigJPfxUYY_0/edit#gid=1719432850 I could be misunderstanding, but wouldn't it be possible for the implementation to achieve the same effect with an internal map (sorted tag list => tag id map)? Plus, fonts do not (typically) have that many tables, right? > Not too late from the spec point of view but early implementers will be > affected - do you guys okay with making this change or would rather keep > things as they are today? > Yes, this would set the early real-world testing back quite it a bit (by months), and thus would come at quite a cost. Would it really be worth it? Thank you, > > Vlad > > > > > > *From:* Behdad Esfahbod [mailto:behdad@google.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, May 29, 2014 1:17 PM > *To:* WOFF Working Group > *Subject:* Sort known-tags list? > > > > Probably too late now, but would have been handy to sort the known-tags > list such that implementations can bsearch... >
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2014 17:50:40 UTC