New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
In the course of time I have posted some info on my PhD research titled Harmonics, Patterns, and Dynamics in Formal Typographic Representations of the Latin Script | The regularization, standardization, systematization, and unitization of roman and italic type since their Renaissance origin until the Romain du Roi on this forum. Based on my more recent ﬁndings I now think it’s possible that movable type was developed as a ‘font format’, in which different horizontal and vertical dynamics and dimensions for (different point sizes of) Gothic and roman type were captured in (geometric) models and in which intelligence was put in (the proportions and related spacing of) punches and matrices to make the cutting, striking, justiﬁcation and casting as simple as possible.
OpenType is indisputably the font format of the present. It is cross-platform, and it is a free and open standard. It opened possibilities for smooth handling of advanced typography and better support for complex scripts.
But limitations remain. They may not be obvious if you only ever design or use Latin text faces. But when you think about what the best solutions are for complex scripts such as Arabic, you realize that there are fundamental strictures of OpenType that make things less efficient than they could be. For example, do we really have to design innumerable glyphs for ligatures, conjuncts, and contextual variants when these are all combinations of simple building blocks? Here is a previous thread on the subject: