Re: [forum] Choosing an extension for bitmap-only SFNTs

On 10 Jul 2003, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:

> I need to pick an extension for the bitmap-only SFNT fonts[1].  While
> these fonts use the same file format as TrueType and OpenType fonts,
> they do not fullfill the requirements of any of the four (!) TrueType
> specifications.  Apple calls them ``sfnt-wrapped bitmap fonts'',
> pfaedit calls them ``bitmap-only TTF fonts'', and Microsoft do not
> call them at all.  These fonts are refused by Windows XP.
> 
> Because users expect files with a ttf or otf extension to contain
> scalable fonts, they need to have a different extension.  Such fonts
> are used by Apple (who do not use file extensions), but not by
> Microsoft (who do); hence, I believe I need to pick a new one.
> 
> I suggest they should have the extension ``.sfnt'', with ``.sfn''
> being recognised for compatibility with 8+3 systems.

I see that Julian also knows about .snf fonts (I think that suggestion 
that anyone still using them should move *into* the 1980s is a little
unfair - they need to move *out of* the 1980s).
Still .sfn is too close to .snf; I vote for ".sfnt".

Andrew C Aitchison