I don't see why a font that covered only certain symbol blocks --
Dingbats, chess symbols, mathematical operators, or otherwise-- should
not be allowed on OFLB. In the future one will be able to search for
fonts meeting certain criteria -- such as covering a specific
orthographic block -- so
Hi,
We have agreed, I think, that we want OFLB to be a source to visitors of
quality fonts, not lots of dross. Ed's fontaine is going to check unicode
coverage of fonts, and testing it I found that a font I'm developing, with
only lowercase glyphs, fails the coverage check since its a latin1
Hi,
Dave Crossland wrote:
We have agreed, I think, that we want OFLB to be a source to visitors
of quality fonts, not lots of dross. Ed's fontaine is going to check
unicode coverage of fonts, and testing it I found that a font I'm
developing, with only lowercase glyphs, fails the coverage
Do the dingbat fonts on OFLB have Unicode CMAPs? Are they putting the
dingbat glyphs in the Dingbat symbols block, or just randomly in the ASCII
or Latin-1 blocks?
Fontaine obviously can't tell what the glyphs look like. Currently Fontaine
does not have an orthography file for the dingbat
On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 08:54 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote:
[...] its a latin1 encoded font without a cap A, and so its obviously
not a fully useful font. Therefore OFLB ought to politely decline it
as a submission and ask me to fill out the caps, I think.
This might reject the Old English fonts
