Re: A way forward

Tal wrote:

> I wish this was true, but it isn't. The OpenType format has very real 
> limitations that cannot be fixed. From what I understand, there is 
> already work going on to develop a new format for component fonts.


There is an mpeg-OFF working group developing a composite font standard. 
A composite font consists of two or more fonts in an XML wrapper that 
function as a virtual font. One of the goals of this work is to overcome 
the 64k glyph limit in sfnt fonts, another is to enable multi-script 
virtual fonts from single-script component fonts, and another is to 
provide for size-specific type designs within a single virtual font. As 
with .webfont, the format of the fonts within the composite font is not 
restricted; I believe it is even possible to have component fonts of 
different format within a single composite font.

Note that composite fonts should not be confused with TrueType 
Collection (TTC) fonts, which is a way of presenting a single TT glyf 
table as multiple fonts.

Jonathan Kew has already identified support for TTCs as something that 
needs to be considered for ZOT, as it should be for .webfont. It 
wouldn't hurt to keep the composite font format in the back of our 
minds, also, especially as it uses an XML wrapper in a way similar to 

John Hudson

Received on Sunday, 26 July 2009 01:38:02 UTC