- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 19:27:01 -0800 (PST)
- To: Adam Twardoch <list.adam@twardoch.com>
- Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, David Håsäther <hasather@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
> Also, are there really any significant platforms that do not support > the .otf flavor of OpenType in terms of plain glyph display? We've run into a number of API-related problems on Windows. The font embedding API's on Windows don't support .otf fonts, that's why Microsoft Office doesn't render embedded .otf fonts in Office documents. When loaded dynamically using other API's .otf fonts don't appear to work with Uniscribe, which effectively disables shaping of complex scripts and support for rich typographic features. I suspect that user agents in situations where code space is tight (e.g. mobile/embedded), support for CFF fonts is an obvious feature to omit. I can definitely imagine situations where only TTF fonts will be supported. > It is worth remembering that it's OpenType as a whole, and not just > the TrueType flavor, that has become international standard ISO/IEC > 14496-22. Of course, TrueType is 20 years old and OpenType is just 10 > years old -- but still, if there are still platforms out there that > cannot provide basic rendering of both OpenType flavors, I consider it > a temporary limitation that will be fixed anytime soon. I think there are still significant differences in how the different flavors of OpenType fonts are handled. Support for shaping of complex scripts varies widely across platforms. I don't really see the ISO flavor of OpenType as changing anything, OpenType is an evolving API largely defined by Microsoft and Adobe. Hence the WWS name id's in OpenType 1.5 and the still publically undefined math table formats used in fonts like Cambria. But hopefully the set of "standard" OpenType features supported across all platforms will rise over the next couple years. Cheers, John
Received on Friday, 5 December 2008 03:27:41 UTC