Talk:OpenType

message: there are over 7,000 fonts available in OpenType format, with Adobe's library making up for about 1/3 of the total.
I believe you mean "making up about one third"--comprising--rather than "making up for..."--compensating.
* I think you are correct.  I deleted the extraneous word "for". In the future, you are welcome to be bold and make such changes yourself. JDLH  | Talk 23:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Para 1 correction? 

message: On November 21, 2005, 194.208.119.18 made this change: "removed link to fontshop.com: nothing opentype-specific here, just general font-topic and custom made fonts (ad?)". The text they removed was under External Links:
* FontShop — Experts in OpenType conversions and custom OpenType fonts: http://www.fontshop.com
Is this deletion appropriate, or should the link be restored?
Arguments for the deletion being appropriate:
* Fontshop.com is a font vending site
* this is the most commercial link of the External Links set
Arguments for restoring the link:
* Fontshop.com does have a category of OpenType fonts, letting you see a wide selection of OpenType examples
** By this argument, we should also put in a link to http://www.adobe.com/type/ and other font vendors with OpenType products and information about their characteristics
* this link has been in the page for a fairly long time; it was added on 2005-08-31 11:57:28 by User:Schawel
* this link is definitely relevant to the page, and definitely not blatant link-farming
Your thoughts?
* If there's no further comments in a week or so, I think I'll restore the link. Unfortunately, I can't get through to the person who made the change, since they didn't have a user ID. JDLH  | Talk 17:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to www.fontshop.com - drop or keep? 

message: I am one of the senior technical support team at Monotype.  Twice I have written that Adobe CS products and above are the only adobe products compatible with opentype and twice its been removed, can some one explain why this is? sailor iain 08:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: in my view, "OpenType support" should mean "full OpenType support". Anything else is "partial support". I am frustrated by applications touting OT support, and then failing to support the feature I happen to need. Right now, I am interested in proper diacritics handling (mark, mkmk) and vertical kerning. I don't know a single word processor who does that, even Mellel (which has above average OT support). Are there any applications that fully support the OT standard, at all? which ones? It seems incredibly annoying to have such a standard in place for 10 years(!) without a single implementation. dab (ᛏ) 07:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adobe products 

message: Can someone add some info about "flavors" of OpenType. Using Linotype FontExplorer X, when I do a get info on a typeface, some display "Opentype (PostScript flavor)".  What does this mean? --24.249.108.133 16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article says, "An OpenType font can include either TrueType outlines or PostScript-style outlines (the latter stored in the Compact Font Format with Type 2 charstrings (CFF)."  PostScript flavor probably refers to the font having PostScript-style outlines.  TrueType flavor probably refers to a font having TrueType outlines. I'll revise the wording of the article to make this clearer. --Jdlh  | Talk 20:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Flavors" of OpenType? 

message: This section seems to me to be too general and dated.. It seems to only be talking about low level Mac OS X APIs and not the Cocoa Text System that most new applications interact with. Apple’s AAT and ATSUI are only small part of the Mac OS "X text handling classes. My experience with the Cocoa text system is that iit is far more advanced than anything else I've seen for text. I'm thinking of adding something to clarify this, but I wanted to see if the original authors are still here and can provide some clarification. Indexheavy 09:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section on Mac OS X support 

message: Much of the article is made up of long lists of tags. Does anyone think it would make sense to give the tags their own article? The lists make the article really long. 
Besides, I feel the list of tags doesn't really fit with the article. The article is there to give people an overview of the Open Type format - the list is more specific then that. It disrupts the overview with very technical information. If we moved the lists to a new page, we could  unify the topic of this article, while giving the list of tags a place where it can be more organized. Nlm1515 22:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My rough guess is that the tags lists make up 1/3 of the vertical height of the article. I don't think that's excessive.  One intermediate option is to add markup to put the tags lists into two columns.  Now, on the other hand, I've had experience where taking a list out of the main article and making it a separate "List of" article really helped the list improve. So I won't fight against making a "List of" article. Note there are really two lists: list of layout tags in OpenType spec, and lists of tags supported and not supported by OS X. I could imagine that someday someone would want to add the list of tags supported and not supported by other text layout engines, such as those in Windows Vista, or Adobe InDesign, or FreeType. --Jdlh  | Talk 22:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large List 

message: Are script tags compatible to ISO 15924? Christoph Päper (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. VasileGaburici (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Script tags 

message: There were some additions of detail and some substantial restructuring on July 20, 2008 to this article.  The list of OpenType feature tags was moved to a new article List_of_typographic_features, which is a list of OpenType features (names only, not tags) along with a list of AAT features. The list of OpenType features, with tags, was moved to a new article OpenType feature tag list; other editors immediately tagged this list as being inappropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, and proposed moving the content to Wikibooks.  I'd like to suggest that those who follow the OpenType article look at these changes and the consequences, and consider if there's a better way to restructure the article. I'm not persuaded that the restructuring was a good idea, and I'm tempted to undo it (restoring the list of tags to this article). Other opinions? --Jdlh  | Talk 06:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the gigantic lists in the middle of the article really distracting. I did not expect they'd get tagger for deletion as a separate article. I proposed some solutions on the talk page of the new list page for those that care about having this list. See Talk:OpenType_feature_tag_list. VasileGaburici (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring/deletion of tags list 

message: Does OpenType have a specific mimetype? I haven't found a particular answer by searching the net. If there is one, and someone knows it, please add the info to the article. Quillaja (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  OpenType mimetype? 

message: Does any version of Mac OS 9.2.2 or older support OpenType?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No--DieBuche (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Support on Classic Mac OS?

message: Sorry if I'm ranting, but most of the open source applications, under linux, that the article claim to have Opentype support just don't support it usefully, or haven't supported it for as a long period as the article (and software developers) claim (which means that the older versions used in most linux distros don't).
I use Ubuntu 10.10 and to many essential Opentype features are amiss in to many applications. Basic features like kerning is missing in Openoffice (and Scribus, until Ubuntu 10.4 or something, it seems to work now, but that means it doesn't work in any of the LTS releases), which make documents using most OT-fonts look butt ugly (kerning works in the Windows versions of OpenOffice since many years) [I have turned on kerning in the Openoffice preferences, it is really not working]. The applications don't understand the proper tables for kerning in Openfont. Sometimes you can hack a font to work by adding old style, deprecated, TTF tables to it, but such a font confuses a lot of other applications, especially in Windows and OS X (at least until a few years ago, you could make both OS crash spectaculary with such a font). Support for many tables in CFF fonts is also missing, or is very buggy.
Applications native to linux (not Openoffice and Scribus, they may have started as native Linux applications, but are now multiplatform and Windows seem to be the preferred developer platform), have since a couple of years excellent Opentype support, as they use native standard libraries directly and not some cross-platform hack. So, Opentype kerning and CFF fonts work excellent with almost every simple text editor, just not with the most popular group of word processors used in Linux systems (OpenOffice and relatives), if you use the Firefox version that come with most Linux distributions, you are also out of luck. Since FreeType nowadays render TTF fonts using the hinting instructions within the font and that usually gives uglier shapes(*) then the previous work-around code to avoid (now expired) Apple patents, now Opentype CFF-fonts (as well as PS-fonts) usually look prettier then Opentype TTF-fonts when rendered by FreeType (and of course, it looks prettier then any font rendering in Windows too).
(*) Microsoft is the only large source of fonts that have hinting instructions better (for most computer screens), then Freetypes hack-around auto-kerning, that I know of, but the licenses for those fonts don't allow installation on other systems then MS Windows. A small number of fonts where TTF hints are generated automatically by FontForge, where the Fontforge hints is made correct (made manually, similar to Postscript hints) also have good TTF hint instruction, but only if they don't have a to different look (from how the glyphs looks in most fonts), and are properly hinted by the font creator (there are subtle differences on how to do this, from Postscript hinting best practices, so most font maker don't know how to do handle Fontforges generationed TTF hinting instructions well).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Se mj (talk • contribs) 14:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual solution would be to fix the article. Please fix it! Strebe (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lackluster Linux support (Openoffice, Scribus, Mozilla et c.) 

message: It doesn't seem to; Adobe's new Source Code Pro fonts look visibly different on my Win7 Pro computer on both my LCD monitors
Both monitors are running at their full, native resolution and one is connected via DVI and the other via 15 pin "VGA".
12.202.74.87 (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether a font gets hinted is up to the font developer. Both TrueType and CFF flavors of OpenType support hinting, though the mechanisms are quite different. Why would you suppose the fonts would look the same with hinting? Most likely you are seeing sub-pixel rendering on the digital connection and not on the analogue. Strebe (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I expected the 2 file formats of the same professionally deveoloped font to either look identical or for the newer format to look slightly better, but neither was the case.  I should take a screenshot and post it somewhere for illustration.  And you misunderstood me; I was trying to say that the results were the same on both my analog-connected monitor and my digitally-connected monitor. 
12.202.74.87 (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the OpenType font format have support for hinting like TrueType does? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on OpenType. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061118080709/http://www.suitcasetype.com/images/font/dederon%20Serif%20Std%20OT/01_Dederon_Serif_Std_OT.pdf to http://www.suitcasetype.com/images/font/dederon%20Serif%20Std%20OT/01_Dederon_Serif_Std_OT.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There exists at least one new mathematical OpenType typeface: https://github.com/khaledhosny/libertinus  Simon.schaelli (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Mathematical OpenType Typefaces 

message: Recently I have notices OpenType specification introduced font variation techonology when I seen from this article, but I still have no idea how to describe even if I saw the who specification. Who can do it? -- Great Brightstar (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a section on this within the History section. (This may eventually need to be a topic on its own.) Pconstable (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to describe OT Font Variation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on OpenType. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140710201619/http://opentype.info/blog/2013/07/03/color-emoji-in-windows-8-1-the-future-of-color-fonts/ to http://opentype.info/blog/2013/07/03/color-emoji-in-windows-8-1-the-future-of-color-fonts/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on OpenType. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605091909/http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200508/081505OpenTypeISO.html to https://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200508/081505OpenTypeISO.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512223957/http://kikaku.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n55201.doc to http://kikaku.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n55201.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512223958/http://kikaku.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n6929t.doc to http://kikaku.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n6929t.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a discussion at Talk:Typography#"Digital typography" that may interest editors. The present redirect target of Digital typography is being debated. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital typography 

message: This insertion is not evidently supported by the citation. Please clarify or remove. Strebe (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  MATH table and variations 

message: I have a request or suggestion.  This article is technically excellent, but I'd be interested in a bit more NON-technical information.  I have questions like: How widely-used is Open Type ... is it now a universal de facto standard?  What is its "market share" among competing technologies?  Are there other, rival technologies that have strengths that make them better choices for particular applications?  Who maintains the specification? is there a consortium? etc. etc. Thanks. Stephen.R.Ferg (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for non-technical information