Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!
Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.
Post History
OpenType stylistic alternates What you see in your first application (google docs) is an enabled/activated OpenType substitution feature: Some »Handwriting« fonts support features to contextually...
#1: Initial revision
by
herrstrietzel
·
2026-01-19T01:14:31Z (8 months ago)
## OpenType stylistic alternates What you see in your first application (google docs) is an enabled/activated OpenType substitution feature: Some »Handwriting« fonts support features to contextually replace certain sequences of characters and replacing subsequent instances of these with alternate glyph designs. This is mainly to achieve a more realistic handwriting look. See also [Microsoft Typography/Registered Features](https://learn.microsoft.com/de-de/typography/opentype/spec/featurelist) ### Why are substitutions missing in another application (e.g Word)? It depends on 2 factors: * does the downloaded (or loaded in case of web usage) **version** include these feature definitions and glyphs? * are they **applied by default?** If not many applications provide extra settings for toggling certain OT features. Some features might be enabled by default e.g standard ligatures like »fi« or »ff« ### OpenType formats: `.ttf`, `.otf`, `woff`, `woff2` Responding to the previous comments: both `.ttf` and `.otf` font files are OpenType font formats supporting the aforementioned OT features equally well (such as contextual alternate substitution). The confusion (whether truetypes are proper Open Types) stems from the fact, truetype already existed before the joint venture for the OT specification (and Adobe claimed the more self explanatory name for their file extension abbreviation. For more details see [»Wikipedia entry about OpenType«](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenType). The core difference between these is the allowed Bézier structure concept: .ttf/truetype relies on quadratic Béziers strored in `glyf` table .otf is based on cubic Bézier desciption in `CFF2/CFF` #### Google fonts When you're using the GF eco system you most likely retrieve web formats like `woff2` or `woff`. These are compressed container formats not introducing a new format structure. Especially, google fonts frequently get updates or are provided in different versions. Since, alternate glyph designs will **inevitably increase file size** significantly most features are simply dropped when requiring fonts via the API. ```css <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Caveat:[email protected]"> ``` When you download a `.ttf` from the Google font website via download button you should usually get the complete font including all features and language support – that's why these font files are significantly larger compared to the preferred more compact `woff2` files loaded via API.  BTW: Newer OT font capabilities such as Variable fonts or colored fonts are also part of the OpenType specification. (Trivia: that's also why many font-parsing libraries have troubles covering all possible OT capabilities)