- From: Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:31:38 +0100
- To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On 24 Jun 2009, at 19:35, Thomas Lord wrote: > I additionally have skepticism about MTX because > of the existence of CATT. > > ...... > > Also, is Monotype additionally offering the "Compact Asian Tech. > for TrueType"? That is where I would expect pretty > huge savings although, to be sure, it's harder to implement. > I haven't seen it discussed here yet it would seem to be > relevant to the problems at hand. As far as I can see, this is irrelevant. CATT appears to be essentially a "marketing label" for the technique of using references to component glyphs rather than repeating entire contours that are common to numerous glyphs. This is nothing more than sensible, efficient use of the existing TrueType standard; we've used this for years in constructing accented Latin characters, lots of Arabic forms, etc., and there's certainly scope for using it to reduce the size of East Asian fonts. JK
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2009 19:32:31 UTC