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

> That was the initial plan, but I found out that having FreeType grok
> such fonts required more changes than David Turner was wililng to make
> in the 2.1.* series.  So I'm generating a zero-length glyf and a
> one-entry loca.  (No EBSC indeed.)
Ok, I'm currently posting a new build of PfaEdit which will generate 
embedded bitmap opentype fonts with extension ".otb" which contain 
dummy 'glyf' and 'loca' tables (and no 'EBSC'). Let me know if there 
are any problems with this or if the format changes over time.

> I feel that having the same extension for bitmap and scalable fonts is
> confusing -- without a naming extension, you need tools such as ftdump
> to find out what your fonts are.
In the same vein, perhaps it would be appropriate to give such fonts a 
different "version" string in the offset table at the beginning of the 
font (PfaEdit is currently generating 'OTTO', which is appropriate for 
opentype fonts). Should this change too? 'OTBO'? or will that need too 
large a change to freetype?