[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ft-devel] GETVARIATION and GETDATA
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: [ft-devel] GETVARIATION and GETDATA |
Date: |
Sun, 17 Jul 2016 23:33:04 +0200 (CEST) |
>>> Please send me the LaoUI.ttf version privately
>
> Thanks!
And now I remember again: The font is OK, there are *no* undocumented
instructions at all! It properly uses IDEF everywhere. While
unusual, this is fully valid bytecode, even on MS engines. In other
words, Microsoft removed support for GETVARIATION and GETDATA in its
bytecode engine but forgot to update the validator program.
Note that these two fonts will *fail* if the Apple bytecode
instructions 0x91 and 0x92 are implemented natively – the
specification says that IDEFS work for undefined opcodes only. In
other words, these two fonts only run on the MS interpreter.
I fear it was a bad idea to add the Apple interpretation of bytecode
0x92 – I have enabled 0x91 for GX fonts only; this makes MS's
LaiUI.ttf work just fine. However, I can't do this for 0x92 since I
don't know its function...
Werner
- Re: [ft-devel] GETVARIATION and GETDATA, (continued)
- Re: [ft-devel] GETVARIATION and GETDATA, Werner LEMBERG, 2016/07/17
- Re: [ft-devel] GETVARIATION and GETDATA, Werner LEMBERG, 2016/07/17
- Re: [ft-devel] GETVARIATION and GETDATA, Hin-Tak Leung, 2016/07/17
- Re: [ft-devel] GETVARIATION and GETDATA, Hin-Tak Leung, 2016/07/17
- Re: [ft-devel] GETVARIATION and GETDATA, Hin-Tak Leung, 2016/07/17
- Re: [ft-devel] GETVARIATION and GETDATA, Alexei Podtelezhnikov, 2016/07/18
- Re: [ft-devel] GETVARIATION and GETDATA, Hin-Tak Leung, 2016/07/17
- Re: [ft-devel] GETVARIATION and GETDATA, Hin-Tak Leung, 2016/07/17
- Re: [ft-devel] GETVARIATION and GETDATA, Hin-Tak Leung, 2016/07/20