@frankrolf @clauseggers it’s because:
1. The VF format was designed to be backwards compatible. You start with the default good old non-vf ttf, then add optional variations on top as new tables that can be ignored.
2. Proposed solutions have not yet been agreed upon, as far as I know.
I agree that’s lame in 2025.
@justvanrossum @clauseggers I am stating my perception of the current state of VFs. Of course not everyone agrees with me, and they don’t have to. I (like many others) have been frustrated by the extreme overhead that VF production requires, while the goal often just is getting pixels on screen. That maybe could be perceived as “dunking”.
Are VFs great? No question. Are they easy to produce? Not really.
Are they offering benefits to normal users? Perhaps.
@justvanrossum @clauseggers That’s not what I meant to say.
Engineers know what they’re talking about, but they don’t (or can’t) see the necessity to have a VF be represented by anything else than the origin, which is usually ExtraLight Condensed. The data might be more “pure” that way – however, does it really communicate the intent of the designer, or properly represent the font? No.
I know the why, and all the ins and outs – still, there’s a big disconnect between the tech and the design.