[sc34wg4] Re: COR3 issue: ST_PitchFamily

[John Haug]

Keeping this in the existing e-mail thread.  I've attached the final text we arrived at during the face-to-face meeting in Beijing.  In short, it was agreed that any ambiguity or differences between attribute values in the two elements (referring and referred, as described in the original DR) are a degenerate case and left to implementations to take the best action they can for their context.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: suzuki toshiya [mailto:mpsuzuki at hiroshima-u.ac.jp] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 9:29 AM
To: SC 34 WG4 <e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org>
Cc: John Haug <johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [sc34wg4] Re: COR3 issue: ST_PitchFamily

Hi,

In today's meeting, there was a suggestion to check whether the different coverage of the optional attributes of CT_TextFont (charset/panose/pitchFamily) has any impacts in resolving the embedded font resource.

I made a set of testing files, and tested with MS Office
2010 and 2013 on Microsoft Windows. I attached my testing files in 7z archive format - if you want me to upload some sites, please let me know.

The results could be summarized very simply, the different coverage of the attributes has no impact in Microsoft Office 2010 and 2013. The tested files are:

01) referring & referred parts have charset only
02) referring & referred parts have panose only
03) referring & referred parts have pitchFamily only
04) referring & referred parts have charset+panose
05) referring & referred parts have panose+pitchFamily
06) referring & referred parts have charset+pitchFamily
07) referring parts have charset, referred part has panose+pitchFamily
08) referring parts have panose, referred part has charset+pitchFamily
09) referring parts have pitchFamily, referred part has charset+panose
10) referring parts have charset+panose, referred part has pitchFamily
11) referring parts have panose+pitchFamily, referred part has charset
12) referring parts have charset+pitchFamily, referred part has panose
13) referring & referred parts have no charset, panose nor pitchFamily

None of them caused the warning dialogue. So, I think "different coverage of the optional attributes; charset/ panose/pitchFamily" is not the "inconsistent attribute".

--

In addition, I tried to check the relationship between OS/2 table's supported codepage coverage and "charset" attribute.
I expected that "charset" attribute should be one of the supported codepages declared in ulCodePageRange in OS/2 table of TrueType:

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/os2.htm#cpr

Modern Turkish is written by Latin script, so, Century and Arial raise "Turkish" bit on, in OS/2 table. However, if I set "charset" attribute to 161 (=Turkish), Office2010 complains some resources in the document could not be opened. From this result, it is not easy to describe how the charset is determined from the given font bitstream. Some people may want further clarification, but it would be long way (more experiments are
needed) and should not be dealt as a part of DR 09-0037.

Regards,
suzuki toshiya, Hiroshima University, Japan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DR 09-0037 redux.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 24703 bytes
Desc: DR 09-0037 redux.docx
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20150924/c75843a6/attachment-0001.docx>