From: mpsuzuki@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
Date: Thu Mar 15 2007 - 05:48:06 CST
Dear Sir,
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:42:19 -0700
Ken Lunde <lunde@adobe.com> wrote:
> You wrote:
> >> Thus, I cannot comment on Comment 3 at this time. It is
> >> implementation-dependent.
> >
> > Umm, my question in comment 3 was insufficiently explained.
[snip]
> > If we have CFF OpenType supporting Adobe-Japan1, there
> > might be 2 methods to select a glyph for such purpose:
> > one is direct selection by CID, another is selection
> > by the combination of Unicode codepoint and OT layout
> > tag "jpXX" families.
> >
> > The former method had ever been specialized for PS/PDF-
> > related frameworks (e.g. Apple Glyph Access protocol is
> > such this kind, but it is designed for internal use).
> > For the viewpoint of information interchange, the latter
> > method had been prefered.
> >
> > But the IVSes (for IVD Adobe-Japan1) makes this method
> > available in plain coded text for information interchange.
> > Thus, I think, the compatibility between former and latter
> > method will be important. Here, I restrict the scope to
> > CFF OpenType including Adobe-Japan1 that both methods are
> > available (although OT layout "jpXX" tags are applicable
> > to non-Adobe-Japan1 CFF OpenType and non-CFF OpenType etc,
> > only the latter method is available in these fonts).
> > If I have CID-keyed font for Adobe-Japan1 and I'm to make
> > CFF OpenType from it, Adobe TechNote #5078 should be
> > sufficiently informative to define "jpXX" tags' GSUB tables
> > to append for CFF OpenType, I guess. So I think it is expected
> > that the relashionship between Adobe-Japan1 CID and OT-tag
> > for CFF OpenType is clarified.
>
> The scope of your request does not affect the Adobe-Japan1 IVD
> submission, as the only thing that is necessary in its context is to
> define the relationship between IVSes and Adobe-Japan1 CIDs. It is
> the responsibility of the Adobe-Japan1 specification (aka, Adobe Tech
> Note #5078) to provide the details you are requesting. The
> information you are requesting can be provided in a forthcoming
> revision of Adobe Tech Note #5078.
> In any case, nothing in the above statements point to any changes or
> corrections to the Adobe-Japan1 IVD registration submission.
I see, the relationship with OT-tag is not necessary to discuss
about IVD submission. I'm looking forward to see next revision
of Adobe Tech Note #5078 (and OpenType specification).
> > No, my comment 5, 6, 7 are about the source of forms which
> > had ever been introduced for legacy vendor character sets
> > and later redefined as forms for JIS.
>
> Much of legacy vendor character set details are found in the legacy
> CMap files that have been established for the purpose of
> encapsulating those glyph sets. So, while the nformation is not
> explicitly provided, it is implicit in the CMap files. In a sense,
> the "cid2code.txt" file that is supplied is one way in which we
> explicitly supply this information
Umm, CMap and cid2code.txt give the character codepoint information,
but no information about the forms of glyphs.
There are 2 kinds of glyph form definitions in Adobe Tech Note #5078,
one is "the primal definition of the form is given by defined by
this Tech Note, as is", another is "the primal definition of the
form is given by another (non-Adobe) documents, like JIS, and
Adobe Tech Note just refers it". I think these 2 definitions are
radically different, and should be distinguished carefully to
obtain correct form definitions.
But the CIDs listed in comments 5-7 are difficult to classify.
They refers multiple non-Adobe documents (e.g. FM-R codechart
and JIS X 0213:2004, they are mutually incompatible), so IVSes
for these CIDs cannot be associated with a unique glyphic subset.
Thus I think they are not fitting to IVD purpose. How do you
think?
> > My comment 9 is a
> > request of clarification of sources of APGS-compatible glyphs
> > in Adobe-Japan1-5.
>
> The request for sources of APGS-compatible glyphs should be directed
> to Apple.
Excuse me, please let me explain in detail. I think, the forms
of APGS were defined by Apple, but the forms of APGS-compatible
glyphs in Adobe-Japan1-5 (the glyphs introduced to support Mac
OS X 10.2 glyph set) were defined by Adobe, and out of the hands
of Apple. If the font designers want to know the detailed forms
of these glyphs, they must ask Apple for the specification (as
we need JIS X 0213:2004 to know the detailed forms of glyphs for
JIS2004) ?
Regards,
mpsuzuki
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 15 2007 - 05:52:55 CST