Why is it not possible to export CFF-based WOFF from Glyphs? Would be handy, I think. Do you think auto-TT-hinting is superior to PS-hinting?
I just didn’t have time to implement it, yet.
Thanks, I see.
To me, CFF-based WOFF is the webfont format of the future (and present), now that Chrome switched to DirectWrite. Providing/using only CFF-WOFF, no EOT, no SVG, no raw fonts, would be today’s most elegant solution in terms of hinting effort, rending quality and file size. The rendering doesn’t quite reach the quality of manualy hinted TT but probably better than auto-TT-hinting.
In my tests I found an interesting effect: By not using subroutines for the CFF-.otf, the final WOFF becomes smaller than with subroutines. Looks like this enables the internal gzip to do more efficient compression than CFF subroutines achieve. So, I’d recommend to use un-subroutinized .otfs internally when generating the WOFF.
Thanks for sharing it with us Tim.
I just tested it and I can reproduce Tims findings.
The rendering doesn’t quite reach the quality of manualy hinted TT but probably better than auto-TT-hinting.
And less experienced hinters might do a better job with manual PS hinting than with manual TT hinting.