Should we formalize the OT Spec?
Belleve Invis
Posts: 269
As OTVar being added, OpenType finally become a programming language somehow...
So should we formalize it, by defining the semantics of a font into a formalized language (like, Coq or Idris), and define the corresponded functions into it?
Here is an example of formalized algorithm of calculating a "value + delta" quantity: https://gist.github.com/be5invis/cf7a3a0c8925cace3749986cf64f15fc
So should we formalize it, by defining the semantics of a font into a formalized language (like, Coq or Idris), and define the corresponded functions into it?
Here is an example of formalized algorithm of calculating a "value + delta" quantity: https://gist.github.com/be5invis/cf7a3a0c8925cace3749986cf64f15fc
Tagged:
1
Comments
-
Do you mean like https://github.com/Pomax/A-binary-parser-generator/blob/master/OpenType.spec ?0
-
No, i mean formalize the semantics instead of binary representation of fonts. For example in the VQ I linked above, it is represented in many forms in different tables, but has the same meaning.Dave Crossland said:Do you mean like https://github.com/Pomax/A-binary-parser-generator/blob/master/OpenType.spec ?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 43 Introductions
- 3.7K Typeface Design
- 815 Font Technology
- 1.1K Technique and Theory
- 630 Type Business
- 450 Type Design Critiques
- 548 Type Design Software
- 30 Punchcutting
- 138 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 85 Technique and Theory
- 53 Lettering Critiques
- 497 Typography
- 307 History of Typography
- 116 Education
- 74 Resources
- 511 Announcements
- 82 Events
- 107 Job Postings
- 154 Type Releases
- 167 Miscellaneous News
- 271 About TypeDrawers
- 53 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 117 Suggestions and Bug Reports