From: UList@dfa-mail.com
Date: Sat Mar 05 2005 - 16:43:37 CST
I think I meant to express a format for freely associating codepoints with
some kind of XML-defined sets of glyphs... in secret my intent was just
user-controlled Variation Selectors...
>
> > > I would love "flexibility" like an "eXtensible Glyph Format".
> >
> > Sounds like an interesting idea.
>
> No, it sounds completely meaningless.
>
> A glyph is a graphic object; depending on your terminology, it is either
> a concrete object, for which the term "glyph image" is also used, on
> abstract object corresponding to a set of glyph images with a common
> identity. A "format" means some means of representing information -- in
> this case information about a glyph. So, unless this is supposed to be a
> format for representing meta-information about abstract glyphs, it must
> mean a format for representing glyph images. Such formats exist: the
> various outline formats, such as TrueType outlines, or pixel formats.
> What's to extend? Are there glyph images that cannot be represented
> using TrueType outlines? No, there are not (and won't be as long as
> writing is done on surfaces rather than in three-dimensional space). The
> only likely extensions are for things like colour of elements within a
> glyph, and such extensions happen as significant innovations of a
> technology such as the TrueType spec; there's no need for a framework
> for arbitrary extensions of formats for representing glyphs by end users
> or in derivative specifications.
>
> I suppose if he was referring to a format for representing
> meta-information about abstract glyphs, then extensibility could make
> sense since there may be all kinds of arbitrary information about a
> glyph that someone may wish to record. But I really doubt this is what
> Doug is talking about.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 05 2005 - 16:29:56 CST