Re: [ft-devel] Support standardized CBDT/CBLC Re: Freetype-devel Digest, Vol 129, Issue 10

[Behdad Esfahbod]

Hey,

Here:
https://github.com/behdad/color-emoji/tree/master/examples

Note that our sample fonts have version 2.0 as the table version number, where
as the OpenType spec (which came after we shipped fonts) decided to use
version 3.0.  I suggest accepting both, possibly just warn about 2.0.

b

On 15-11-06 09:13 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> Hi Behdad,
> 
> do you have such a font and/or can point me in the direction of
> one such file? I'll add support for that to the TODO list of you-know-what 
> :-).
> It doesn't currently parse those those tables, at all. I assume
> that's because color glyphs is a recent (>2009) addition.
> 
> Hin-Tak
> 
>  Message: 2
>  Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 14:13:54 -0400
>  From: Behdad Esfahbod <address@hidden>
>  To: "address@hidden"
>  <address@hidden>
>  Subject: [ft-devel] Support standardized CBDT/CBLC
>  Message-ID: <address@hidden>
>  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>  
>  Werner,
>  
>  Apparently somewhere during the standardization, CBDT/CBLC
>  got their version
>  bumped to 3:
>  
>    https://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/cblc.htm
>    https://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/cbdt.htm
>  
>  FreeType currently only accepts 2, which is the number we
>  used in our
>  proposal.  ttsbit.c needs to be updated to accept
>  3.  I suggest we accept both
>  2 and 3 for both color and non-color versions of this. 
>  Or you can only accept
>  2 for non-color (EBDT/EBLC), and accept both 2 and 3 for
>  color ones.  If doing
>  so, you want to disable color in EBDT/EBLC as well..
>  
>  Whatever you do, please don't break our existing fonts, that
>  is, CBLC/CBDT
>  with version number 2.
>  
>  Thanks!
>  -- 
>  behdad
>  http://behdad.org/
>  
>  
> 

-- 
behdad
http://behdad.org/