IMHO, MS Word is better than OpenOffice Writer for buisness processes, but worse for typography and layout, though they both are not intented for typography first of all unlike InDesign or QuarkXPress. Version 3.2 (November 2009) of OOo will have support for Graphite smart font technology [http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Features#Features_planned_for_OOo_3.2_.28November_2009.29]. It has been already implemented in the development version of OOo (see Issue 69129: Add support for Graphite font technology [http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=69129] and Issue 93645: Add a Graphite module to support Graphite Smart Fonts [http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93645]) and there are some third party builds as well (http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=OOo_20_graphite), but since v3.2 it will be supported in official releases.

SIL Graphite smart font technology can do everything OpenType does, but it was disigned to be more extensible than OpenType. In particular, the notion of Graphite features is of interest as compared to OpenType features. OpenType features are sort of functionality granules which may also give users some options. Graphite features are pure user options. Functionality in Graphite is devided in some functional primitives such as kerning, shifting, reordering, glyph alternation and so on that can be composed in any way. Graphite features are sort of a unified interface for user options and not just of binary choice, apropos, but n-ary. Font designer decides himself what functionality he or she includes into his or her feature. So every OpenType feature can also be implemented in graphite. In OpenType an application developer needs to implement every ot-feature. In Graphite, if a developer has already implemented graphite engine (graphite functional primitives [Shifting and kerning, ligature substitution, reordering, stacking diacritics, using attachment points, ...]) and feature interface, typeface designer can incorporate into a font any feature based on implemented functionality.

The main problem for SIL Graphite unlike OpenType is a lack of good visual tools for font designers, but it is really a better technology. Now Graphite support is implemented in SIL WorldPad (maybe unworth mentioning), XeTeX and OpenOffice.

[The main problems for SIL Graphite fonts are (1) a complete lack of interest from font designers, and (2) the fact that it has zero support in what I would call mainstream applications. Together those two things ensure it's not ever becoming mainstream itself. Sure, it's very cool, and even a more powerful format than OpenType. But its flexibility also means it's much harder to develop fonts for. This is one of the same problems AAT/GX fonts had, a format which despite native support in Mac OS, and in the iLife suite, is pretty much dead on arrival. Other than folks interested in supporting especially obscure languages, pretty much nobody is doing Graphite fonts. OpenType is half-decently supported in InDesign, Illustrator, QuarkXPress, Photoshop, the next versions of Word and Publisher, and the latest text engine for Flash. I will bet you $1000 in cash that 10 years from now there still won't be even 1/10 as many Graphite fonts as OpenType fonts. Care to take me up on that? - T]

WordPerfect did kerning, automatic ligatures, and proper smallcaps back in the late 1980s. Its demise shows that typographic superiority isn’t what the masses are after.

Peter

[Back in the late 1980s WordPerfect was the most popular word processor. It was only when the application completely failed at making the transition to a graphical user interface in the early 90s that it lost out to Microsoft Word. That and the "suite" approach to bundling software were what did it in. I appreciated its better typography, but when one wanted a graphical UI, there was no contest. Word won. - T]

They rely on there existing codepoints for glyphs matching alternates, which necessarily are the Private Use Area; they do not rely on consistent use of the same codepoints: it’s nice if a font producer is consistent, but I’m resigned to knowing the codepoints of fonts I possess.

Of course, many characters do exist in Unicode but whose codepoints are outside the FF limit, e.g. the ligaments fi, fl, ff, ffi, and ffl, i.e. the standard set; another example are the conventional fixed spaces (but font designers are loath to provide them; I suppose they’re not much fun).

[Yes, I had noticed that there isn't a separate OT option for small caps, superscript or subscript. I hope there is some way of getting at those typographic glyphs as opposed to being stuck with Word's scaling. - T]

[Shrug. Even if not everyone knows what to do with these options, at least it will be easier to do good typography in Word and MS Publisher. BTW, I'm guessing your macros are relying on Adobe's use of consistent PUA Unicode codepoints for alternate glyphs. This approach is not used by all font developers, and Adobe has itself abandoned PUA usage for typographic alternates in their most recent fonts. - T]

I think you are unduly sanguine in thinking that ‘the masses’ can recognise good typography. Consider this note we received from one of our authors after he had seen his page proofs, which were typeset using old-style figures: ‘I am concerned about the font used for numbers in the main text. It is too squatty there and looks wrong.’

LTM