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
- 46 Introductions
- 3.8K Typeface Design
- 479 Type Design Critiques
- 558 Type Design Software
- 1.1K Type Design Technique & Theory
- 646 Type Business
- 836 Font Technology
- 29 Punchcutting
- 512 Typography
- 119 Type Education
- 318 Type History
- 75 Type Resources
- 110 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 31 Lettering Critiques
- 79 Lettering Technique & Theory
- 540 Announcements
- 88 Events
- 112 Job Postings
- 168 Type Releases
- 171 Miscellaneous News
- 274 About TypeDrawers
- 53 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 119 Suggestions and Bug Reports