Re: #conform-mustSpecifyGlyfTableSize

Thank you Chris,

I will open an issue on the respective Github repositories.

Cheers,

C.

On 17 April 2015 at 12:50, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:

> Hello Cosimo,
>
> Thursday, April 16, 2015, 7:01:45 PM, you wrote:
>
> >  Thank you for your reply!
> >  As for the padding, I was not referring to the padding between
> > tables, but within the glyf table between each glyph entry, which in
> > turn is reflected in the loca offsets.
> >  The reference implementation still "normalises" the glyf table
> > according to the now outdated notion of nominal size, by rounding
> > the glyph lengths to multiples of 4 bytes.
>
> That is no longer required, but nor is it incorrect. An implementation
> might choose to optimise for smallest size by not padding, or optimise
> for fastest access by aligning.
>
> >  When it comes to
> > reconstructing a glyf table which was not internally padded and has
> > therefore has a shorter origLength, the reference decoder fails
>
> That is a bug
>
> > because the reconstructed table (with 4-byte glyph padding) doesn't
> > fit the encoded origLength from the third-party encoder.
>
> It is not required to fit that length.
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  Chris  Lilley
>  Technical Director, W3C Interaction Domain
>
>


-- 

*Cosimo Lupo*
Font Development