[Openfontlibrary] Font File Type and Admins?

[George Williams]

On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 15:22, Jon Phillips wrote:
> Ok, one of the big things about Open Clip Art Library that makes things
> simple is that the project uses a public standard, SVG. What would the
> equivalent be for font?
Well, of course SVG does have a font format too. And that format can
store either quadratic or cubic splines. But it doesn't store PS hints
and it doesn't store TT instructions. Nor does it contain all the info
present in GPOS/GSUB/morx etc. No support for bitmaps. No support for
multi-master.

> Do you all think we should similarly store in the best and most open
> font file format?
> 
> Seems like OpenType might be this standard. Is this true?
Even if by OpenType you mean either ttf or otf files then you won't
cover 
  * Apple Advanced Typography
  * type3 (and the equivalent to type3 in svg), 
  * multi-master (and Apple's equivalent to multi-master for truetype) 
  * bitmaps.
  * Various groups have added various tables to the basic 'sfnt' format
	which I think, technically, means they don't conform to the otf
	standard.

But you do want to retain the distinction between cubic and quadratic
(truetype vs postscript) and not lump everything into one or the other.
So you can't restrict yourself to just otf or just ttf.

(Apple Advanced Typography will probably just slide in unless you try
really hard to prevent it -- it looks like a normal ttf file unless you
check the tables).

Is type3 a format worth considering?

Is bitmap only a format worth considering?
  * OpenType does not include a bitmap only format
  * Windows does not support a bitmap only sfnt
  * Apple has a bitmap only sfnt format but it's a bit unexpected
  * X11 has a bitmap only sfnt which is a bit more reasonable
	(extension .otb)

Is Multi-Master important?
  This got removed from the type2 spec at MS insistance and can't be
    specified in an OpenType font.
  If Multi-Master matters then you must add support for pfa/pfb
  (Apple has it's own Multi-Master like concept which slots into
   a ttf file so again it will probably just work).

> I'm not really in favor of allowing any ole filetype and this is a way
> we can innovate and push for support of a good standard.
> 
> What do you all think?
So I think the big hold ups would be support for Multi-Master and type3
fonts.

Type3 fonts don't even have a standard extension.