URL: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68348>
Summary: [devpdf] URW fonts lack coverage of CJK glyphs--how
does this differ from devps?
Group: GNU roff
Submitter: gbranden
Submitted: Thu 14 May 2026 08:21:42 PM UTC
Category: Font devpdf
Severity: 3 - Normal
Item Group: Feature change
Status: Need Info
Privacy: Public
Assigned to: deri
Open/Closed: Open
Discussion Lock: Unlocked
Planned Release: None
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comments:
-------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu 14 May 2026 08:21:42 PM UTC By: G. Branden Robinson <gbranden>
Hi Deri,
I was about to edit the _gropdf_(1) man page to make what I thought was a
clarification (URW fonts support East Asian scripts as well as Cyrillic), when
I decided to check my facts first.
Back in January, I reverted a commit from last year at your request.
commit 6738c51a9b59b9d842319cc455cadec7eed2f5eb
Author: G. Branden Robinson <[email protected]>
Date: Sat Jan 31 14:38:31 2026 -0600
Revert "[devpdf]: Ship abstract CJK font descriptions."
This reverts commit ca68e94af7c10f035b5e4cee538be33c3f1a9122.
Deri says gropdf's CJK support already works satisfactorily.
Looking the URW fonts on my system with FontForge, I find that they don't have
CJK coverage.
I'm therefore asking myself why that reversion was warranted.
The rationale for including them is stated in the reverted commit.
commit ca68e94af7c10f035b5e4cee538be33c3f1a9122
Author: G. Branden Robinson <[email protected]>
Date: Sun Jun 29 03:11:22 2025 -0500
[devpdf]: Ship abstract CJK font descriptions.
* font/devpdf/devpdf.am: Ships font description file names for the "pdf"
output device corresponding to the 8 new font description files for
CJK script support recently added for the "{x,}html", "ps", and "utf8"
devices.
These are intended as abstractions of faces to permit consistent naming
while permitting customization, just as with the 12 text typefaces
supported across output devices for Latin scripts in groff (three
families of four styles each). These CJK font descriptions are not
organized into groff font families, but are similar. They are not
mounted by default.
CSH: Simplified Chinese, Hei style
CSS: Simplified Chinese, Song style
CTH: Traditional Chinese, Hei style
CTS: Traditional Chinese, Song style
JPG: Japanese, Gothic style
JPM: Japanese, Mincho style
KOG: Korean, Gothic style
KOM: Korean, Mincho style
* font/devpdf/devpdf.am (DEVPDFFONTFILES_FROM_DEVPS): Add them.
* .gitignore: Add them.
If the user can get at glyphs for CJK code points without having to locate
font files and configure _groff_ to locate them--as would be the case if the
URW fonts covered them--then I can see how the foregoing would not be
necessary.
But given that _groff_'s CJK users are in the same boat with _gropdf_ as with
_grops_, why should I not revert the reversion?
(It would be fair to ask, given the foregoing reasoning, why I don't revert
the addition of CJK abstract face names to _grohtml_ and _grotty_. Maybe I
should.)
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68348>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
