On 2/3/2010 4:42 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > I'd be very surprised if more app designers had heard of ttc than of > locl. TTC is *very* uncommon in comparison to fonts that use locl. I'd > expect both to break in old (or even recent apps), but ttc support to > break more. > It is strange, your experience seems to be very different from mine. IMHO, TTC support across most platforms is quite old and reliable in the past. Many of the CJK fonts on Windows were shipped in the TTC forms since Win95 age, and are still used today; freetype2 also supports ttc from early ages. For WQY fonts, I have never had any issue with TTC format for PC users. The only places where it seem to break are cell phones running WM or Symbian OS. It is true that it is uncommon for non-latin fonts (because it gains little benefit), but that's different from it is unreliable. It is rather a simple format as it only merges the identical tables. Thanks to freetype2 and fontconfig, the ttc format is almost transparent to applications, unless they want to deal with the font file itself. > But anyway, as long as the "one font family and face per font file" > property that every font format but TTC guarantees is preserved, I don't > personally object to ttc use. Just have doubts it will work out any > better than locl. > Even the "one font family per file" is not entirely necessary. For example, WQY Zenhei TTC contains 3 fonts, Zen Hei (sans), Zen Hei Mono (mono) and Zen Hei Sharp (same as Zen Hei but with embedded bitmaps). All three fonts share the same glyf table. For the sans and mono faces,only the cmap tables are different. This literately cut down the font file to 1/3 of 3 TTF. I would encourage using TTC whenever it is possible. The format seems to be well supported and quite reliable to me. _______________________________________________ fonts mailing list fonts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fonts
