[Devel] Re: OpenType Layout stuff and history (long)

[Antoine Leca]

Hi guys,

I have read in the OpenType list (@topica.com) a very interesting
contribution from Greg Hitchcock, from Microsoft, which is quite an
informed guy about the OpenType specs and the font formats in general.
I decided to forward it here, with authorization (thanks Greg).

I would emphasize one idea of Greg, about the distinction that should
be made between the *required* use of OT (or equivalent) feature, in
order to be able to properly render the so-called "complex scripts",
and the *possible*, or *optional*, use of it for "better typography".
Greg explains quite clearly why OpenType, which documentation shows
as merely a way for enhanced typography, has forked, at least in
Windows, into the support for complex scripts.
I believe that in the development of ftlayout, we will quite likely
encounter a similar fork; and I think we should take the time now to
discuss the future ways, and in this respect the direction(s) we
would make privilegied. This is important when the design time will
come, probably not that far from now.

I apologize fro those guys which are subscribed on both lists,
particularly those like me which are behind a modem and a billed
line, since the message is quite big...

Antoine

Greg Hitchcock wrote:
> 
>      I may be stepping into a bit of hot water here, but I thought it
> might be worthwhile to give a little historical background and maybe a
> slightly different perspective on OpenType Layout. I should state up
> front that I'm not currently working on OpenType Layout right now,
> ClearType is my current focus area, but Paul Nelson is doing an
> excellent job in driving and improving the technology. At the time of
> the OpenType Jamboree, though, OpenType Layout was my project, so I can,
> and should be held accountable for some of the early issues.
> 
> First, I want to differentiate between OpenType and OpenType Layout. I
> consider OpenType to be *very* successful. The fonts work cross
> platform, and the design is rather elegant, which ultimately goes back
> to Apple's TrueType architecture. I'd have hoped for more use of DSIGs
> by now, but I'm sure given a bit more time that will become more common
> :-)
> 
> OpenType Layout, formerly known as TrueType Open, is what I'll focus on
> in this message.
> 
> The GX / line layout manager work (now AAT) from Apple is a beautiful
> system. Dave, and also Eric, did great work here. Microsoft sought to
> license the technology for what was to become Windows 95, but Apple
> chose not to. That was absolutely within their right, and I genuinely
> hope that was the right decision for Apple. (I'll discuss this a little
> bit more later.)
> 
> Of course, Microsoft needed a way to support a similar type of
> functionality, so we put two of our best architects to the problem,
> Eliyezer and Dean. They came up with an elegant system as well. It
> should be noted that the impetus of the design was to solve
> internationalization issues, Latin typography happens to fall out of
> this relatively quickly. Soon after this design, our complex scripts
> fonts and Japanese fonts incorporated this technology.
> 
> Now comes the hard part. We got support into Windows for the complex
> scripts quite easily, but it has been very difficult getting support
> into applications. I'm surprised a quote I gave at the OpenType Jamboree
> has not been bounced back to me. When describing OpenType Layout I said
> something like the technology will be a failure if applications don't
> support it -- fortunately I didn't give a time limit :-) Now it would be
> very dangerous here for someone to take this statement and twist it into
> saying Microsoft thinks OpenType *Layout* is a failure--we don't, and as
> I just said, it is critical to our internationalization story. But, I do
> have to admit that I'm disappointed in the turnout so far. This of
> course brings up the subject of Adobe. Adobe's done a wonderful job
> getting the infrastructure of OpenType Layout support into their
> applications. And I truly believe it will add a bit of momentum to the
> slow (yet sure) OpenType Layout train.
> 
> Bill Troop raises some interesting points that are worth discussing.
> 
> > What she [Carla Ow-Chu] was saying, after all, was that the problems
> here are not
> > technology, but ego, and bottom line. And the greatest of these is
> ego! Apple has the
> > technology, and has always been willing to share it for a reasonable
> price. The only
> > thing that stopped GX for Windows becoming a reality was that MS would
> not even
> > give Apple a token payment.
> 
> I saw the memo from David Nagle at Apple on this topic. And I can
> confidently say it was *not* a token payment, even for Microsoft. My
> interpretation of this was that because of the price and other
> "requirements" that Apple did not really want to license the GX
> technology to Microsoft. Put in the context of how the press treated
> TrueType in Windows 3.1, this seems reasonable. Unfortunately after
> this, Microsoft and Apple began to drift further apart in our TrueType
> definitions. A few years after this, though, we started working closer
> together, and have made some progress in bringing things somewhat in
> sync, not in all areas, but some significant ones.
> 
> I need to admit here that I have the highest respect for Peter Lofting
> and his group at Apple. They are very passionate about typography and
> beauty of the letterform.
> 
> Bill Troop also said:
> 
> > Microsoft's typography department should not attempt to interest the
> typographic
> > community in new typographic technologies unless, and until, it has
> the full support
> > of its own app managers.
> 
> To some degree I agree with Bill here. I find it *highly* embarrassing
> that Microsoft's own apps don't support OpenType Layout for Latin
> typography. And this is something I'll be escalating to the top in
> Microsoft. But I do want to temper Bill's comment with two other points.
> First of all, I as I've mentioned, I consider OpenType Layout to be
> successful for international fonts. Any investment the typographic
> community makes in this area should not be greatly hindered by a lack of
> application support. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's good. Paul
> Nelson in the typography group at Microsoft is doing an excellent job
> driving this work. The other point to mention is that at the OpenType
> Jamboree I discussed the difficulty of the chicken and egg problem--if
> there are not enough fonts, the app makers wouldn't come. Now, there was
> a complaint made at the Jamboree that there should have been application
> writers at the Jamboree, and maybe that would have helped, and as Bill
> also mentioned, "Believe me, once the app support is there, the fonts
> will come, and fast." But I also remember recommending caution to the
> font community with respect to OpenType Layout, and to not rush into the
> process without carefully planning. On the other hand, with respect to
> OpenType fonts themselves, I strongly recommended that the industry
> rapidly convert their libraries -- with DSIGs of course :-)
> 
> Back to Microsoft apps, I think the performance argument is bogus,
> although I don't have the luxury (or pain) of making such decisions for
> our products. That said, for the areas that I'm currently working on in
> Microsoft, OpenType Layout will be very important for Microsoft's
> future. So I am confident the technology will propagate into Microsoft
> apps.
> 
> Finally, it is important if you care about this topic and Microsoft apps
> that you contact Microsoft and express your opinion. My arguments carry
> less weight than do customers of our products. To give feedback to
> Microsoft, you can use the following web site:
> http://www.microsoft.com/MSWish/wishwizard.asp. Please be as explicit as
> possible and explain why features like OpenType layout support are
> important (if that's what you believe.)
> 
> Greg
> 
> ==^================================================================
> EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrFCd.bVTbsQ
> Or send an email To: address@hidden
> This email was sent to: address@hidden
> 
> T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
> http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
> ==^================================================================