On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 1:02 PM Skef Iterum <iterum...@skef.org> wrote:
> CFF2 is released, has been for years. As far as I know there's no solid > convention for ignoring unrecognized operators in a CharString, so this > would be CFF2 minor 1 at best. Which would be years out in terms of > support. > > Practically speaking I don't think this could wind up being a "this > glyph has overlap" flag, as in CFF2 overlap is valid anywhere. If > something were added it would be more like a "this glyph doesn't have > overlap, you can optimize the rendering" flag. > > Behdad - there's no provision for a relevant flag in VARC currently, > correct? (I'm not sure there was one in the glyf-based system, as I > don't remember a place where the flag would have lived.) > Correct. > Skef > > On 12/19/23 10:53, Alexei Podtelezhnikov wrote: > > Why? The sequence 0x0c 0x40 is reserved and not used for example. > > > > > >> I'm afraid the horse has left the barn as far as that goes. > >> > >> Skef > >> > >>> On 12/19/23 04:23, Alexei Podtelezhnikov wrote: > >>> I would suggest that CFF2 invent a special charstring to mark overlaps > >>> with FT_OUTLINE_OVERLAP only when necessary. Let us know to implement > >>> it in FreeType. > >
