Rod

PR updated to say COLR without CPAL is ok but you can't have blend modes.

> if an extension is using a combination of existing glyf and COLR tables, then existing software would attempt to render the font producing garbage display results > So, the...

> What's the benefit of having the relevant data in the COLR table versus using a subset of the formats in a distinct table for this particular purpose? The intent...

> But isn't the point to have a new way to define composites? Maybe "composite" is a bit overloaded in the font context. I see this as looking at what...

> using a COLR "composites" as a clip region I would have expected this to be done via PaintComposite with no change to the definition of PaintGlyph but perhaps I'm...

> PaintComposite takes rendered source and backdrop bitmaps and combines them. PaintGlyph provides a clip path. I think I'm beginning to see. A few thoughts that may or may not...

Per VC with Peter, Cosimo: - 5.7.11.2.5.5 should spell out that it does NOT match COLR glyphs - 5.7.11.2.5.11 should say "conceptually" rendered into two bitmaps

> Make a nullptr Paint offset mean a solid foreground paint Much better, made it so, thank you.

It would be nice to state that implementations *must* support avar2 if they support the new glyph tables to ensure it's safe to assume if GLYF/LOCA work so does avar2,...

Design coords are notably mostly for having simple translation to normalized. Historically these units have been an endless source of confusion. Why not just say the values are always normalized?...