On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Keith Packard wrote: >Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:15:17 -0700 >From: Keith Packard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Subject: Re: Choosing an extension for bitmap-only SFNTs > >Around 1 o'clock on Jul 10, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > >> I suggest they should have the extension ``.sfnt'', with ``.sfn'' >> being recognised for compatibility with 8+3 systems. > >While using four letter extensions would be nice, I'm afraid there remain >file system formats which provide for only three letters that are commonly >used in systems which run X. Floppies, flash cards and other devices >continue to use FAT file systems, and while there are kludges around to >provide long file names, those aren't always well supported nor compatible. > >So, if we accept only a four letter extension we will have "issues" >distributing fonts on floppies, flash cards and USB keychain drives. > >Juliusz suggests accepting either .sfnt or .sfn to work around this >problem. That's how the world deals with the .html extension -- software >all "knows" that .html and .htm are equivalent. I'd rather avoid this >complexity in every new piece of software that deals with fonts (not that >fontconfig or FreeType really care, but other pieces of software do). > >Instead, I think we can probably come up with a single three letter >extension to use; perhaps something like: > > .ttb - true type 'bitmap' font > .otb - open type 'bitmap' font > .tts - true type 'sfnt' font > .ots - open type 'sfnt' font > >.otb appears to be used for Nokia Phone Graphics files of some kind and >.ots appears used by the OtsJuke application for sound files, but neither >.ttb nor .tts appear used at the current time. > >This is certainly not intended to be an exhaustive list of possibilities, >but I would like to limit discussion to viable three letter extensions. > >I agree with Andrew C Aitchison that the .sfn extension is probably a bad >idea, both because it may be easily confused with .snf and also because >SPX Fonts already use the .sfn extension.
Yeah, just checked on: http://filext.com/detaillist.php?extdetail=.sfn&Submit2=Go%21 -- Mike A. Harris _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
