-------------------------------------------- On Tue, 2/8/16, Werner LEMBERG <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I wondered whether I should hook up v38 instead, or in addition. > > Speed is definitely not a concern for a tool that uses private > > version of FreeType to analyze fonts - it will just take whatever > reasonable time it takes to accomplish the task... > I think v40 is a better choice for validation. For (my own?) goals of validating fonts for usage on libre platforms and 'quality in general', whatever is FreeType's default needs to be offered. Since v40 is to be default on, that's that. OTOH, there are a whole bunch of users (font designers, of the probably commercial type, or at least hoping-to-make-money-from-font-design type) who views it as a check for 'fitness to run on MS windows' - at least they looked at the old font validator that way. That was the first response on typedrawers on my announcement of the beginning of the new test: how can one use one rasterer checks for errors targeting another? In reality, most errors with hinting instructions (I see on my ~5000 fonts) are not rasterization errors, but programming errors - mis-counting the number of points/contours, running the operand stack dry, etc. These are errors on *any* platform. For those errors which are rasterization errors - i.e. actual pixels being drawn/not-drawn the "right" way - would v38 be closer to how MS windows does things? _______________________________________________ Freetype-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
