DR 09-0043 _ WML, Fonts: notTrueType attribute and bitmap fonts

[mpsuzuki at hiroshima-u.ac.jp]

Dear Chris,

I've checked Office for Mac v.X and 2008. They cannot
embed any fonts into the document, so I think existing
Microsoft implementations for OOXML had never embedded
a TrueType font without outline.

--

Also I have to correct my previous post "Mac OS X
accepts a TrueType font without outline glyph data".
Until Mac OS X 10.4 (so-called Tiger), it is true.
But after Mac OS X 10.5 (so-called Leopard), it
is false. A TrueType font without outlne glyph data
is refused as "this font has serious problem in sfnt
structure, it cannot be used" (a font with minor
problem is warned but accepted - a font with serious
problem is not accepted).

# NOTE:
# When I write as "a TrueType font without outline
# glyph data", it means a TrueType font without
# loca/glyf table (tables for TrueType outline)
# nor CFF table (table for PostScript outline).
#
# A TrueType font including loca/glyf table that
# content is only single glyph for white square
# (to be used as a fallback for missing glyph)
# is NOT "a TrueType font without outline glyph data".

Regards,
mpsuzuki

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 22:17:45 +0900
mpsuzuki at hiroshima-u.ac.jp wrote:

>One of my concern was that "OpenType (or ISO/IEC 14496-22)
>permits a font including bitmap glyph only, and without
>any outline glyph (not TrueType, not PostScript), it
>should not be marked as notTrueType?".
>
>It seems that Mac OS X accepts such bitmap-only OpenType.
>I will check Office on Macintosh platforms, within 24 hours.
>Unfortunately, I have no access for the latest Office for
>Mac 2011.
>
>Regards,
>mpsuzuki
>
>On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:44:41 +0000
>Chris Rae <Chris.Rae at microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>http://cid-c8ba0861dc5e4adc.office.live.com/view.aspx/Public%20Documents/2009/DR-09-0043.docx
>>
>>This DR we discussed in Tokyo and my notes say I had some minor writing up to do and then we could close it. Unfortunately my notes don't say any more than that, so I am relying on my memory to work out what that writing up was. I *think* that the issue was the use of "TypeType" when we really meant "TrueType or OpenType", so I've edited the text to include that. I also spotted a typo which I've fixed.
>>
>>Suzuki-san, is there a chance you could take a look at this one and confirm that these are the right changes? If they are, we should be able to close it easily on the next call.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>