- From: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:12:54 +0000
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com>
- CC: "w3c-webfonts-wg (public-webfonts-wg@w3.org)" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On 18/3/15 13:40, Chris Lilley wrote: > Hello Vlad, > > Tuesday, March 10, 2015, 10:55:45 PM, you wrote: > >> The following changes have been implemented in the spec >> (http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#woff20Header) : >> >> - Action 165: revised the second paragraph of subclause >> 5.4 to optionally allow alphabetically sorted tables inserted >> between ‘glyf’ and ‘loca’ only when individual font files are >> encoded in WOFF2. For font collection files – ‘loca’ MUST >> immediately follow the ‘glyf’ table. > > "however when WOFF2 contains a font collection file both glyf and loca > tables MUST immediately follow each other" > > That doesn't seem optimally clear, to me. How about > > "however when WOFF2 contains a font collection file, for each font in > the collection, the glyf and loca table pairs MUST immediately follow > each other" Or maybe what we mean is something more like: "When WOFF2 contains a font collection file, each 'loca' table MUST immediately follow its corresponding 'glyf' table" We don't necessarily care about the overall order, or even whether all glyf/loca pairs are contiguous; the key point is the pairing of each glyf with its loca. So an example such as cmap glyf loca hhea hmtx glyf loca glyf loca post ... ought to be acceptable. > > perhaps add an example: > > not a collection > cmap glyf hhea hmtx loca maxp ... > > collection > cmap glyf loca glyf loca hhea ... > >
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2015 14:13:24 UTC