> In short, it's not clear to me what the audience for otvalid is. Is
> it to help font designers validate their tables only? The reason I
> can't use the code as is is that my code has a different idea of
> what is valid, or rather, good enough. It's fair to say that I'm
> not developing a validator, more like a sanitizer. For example, I
> don't care if the format specifier of a subtable is invalid, since
> my lookup code will simply ignore that table.
The original idea was that you validate a font's OpenType tables so
that you can access them without any further memory checking.
AFAIK, George uses the `otvalid' module in FontForge.
> One place I found otvalid being too strict is that it checks that
> glyph ids are "valid" by making sure the font has such a glyph.
> This is not required by the spec AFAIK, and indeed, multiple tables
> can use invalid glyph ids ephemerally to simply case handling.
This sounds like a bug. In general, `otvalid' shouldn't be stricter
than FreeType. However, this module is probably not in sync with the
rest of FreeType where I've added code to handle broken fonts here and
there.
Werner
_______________________________________________
Freetype-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
