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...
>