Re: Bug report: Allow CFF based OT fonts with missing map table

>
> My own focus is on PDF files. The PDF spec says that fonts declared as
> OpenType should be OpenType, and the files I'm looking at violate the
> spec. (PDF also supports standalone CFF fonts, so it's relatively
> little extra work for me to pull the CFF blob out of these bogus
> "OpenType" fonts, and handle it as a CFF font.)


Oh yes, you're right there. However, this is a very general problem. Even
though OpenType is a Microsoft trademark, Microsoft had done a very poor
job in explaining/defining what is and what ISN'T an "OpenType font".

Windows had been announcing OpenType fonts with a glyf table but without a
DSIG table as "TrueType" for many years, even though TrueType is an Apple
trademark. So many end-users for a long time associated CFF-based OpenType
with "OpenType".

And PDF has its own notion of font format "branding", and then there's a
question of how certain apps like Acrobat present these.

I lost count of the different variants of fonts that "can exist" in a PDF a
log time ago. I guess a Type42 with a variable CFF2 table is also
theoretically possible :) Or with just CBDT, without glyf and CFFx.

One thing for sure: on "desktop", certain fonts work out they don't, but
they need to be kind of "complete". But PDF has this flurry of "partial
font resources" which makes it extra-complex.

A.



>