Re: A way forward

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 1:37 PM, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>
> POI:
>
> 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.


Sounds nightmarish, but it also sounds like this is going to be an XML
wrapper around SFNT fonts, at least as first deployed. In that case, if we
have a spec for embedding metadata in SFNT fonts, it will work with this new
format.

Actually this other XML wrapper raises some question for .webfont. Should an
mpeg-OFF wrapper around a .webfont work? What about a .webfont wrapper
around an mpeg-OFF wrapper? What about a .webfont wrapper around an mpeg-OFF
wrapper around a .webfont wrapper? Which metadata takes precedence in the
latter case? Wrappers can be trouble...

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]