On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:56 PM, David Kuettel <kuettel@google.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@google.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:49 PM, David Kuettel <kuettel@google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 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? >>> >> >> Not really worth it, I agree. Just something that sprang to my mind >> while reading the code. >> > > Thank you Behdad! Any improvements to the reference implementation (esp. > that did not change the wire format) would be fantastic. The more eyeballs > and improvements the better! :) > Doing so: https://code.google.com/p/font-compression-reference/issues/list Another idle idea: would have been nice to register the transformed glyf data as something like a 'gly2' table such that the transformed glyf data and the container could be decoupled. > >> behdad >> >> >>> >>> 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 18:01:36 UTC