On 05 Jan 2008 08:33:32 -0800, George Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 04:48, Victor Gaultney wrote: > > Fonts, themselves, are also often the best 'source' for a font, > > and can be more useful to developers in free environments than the > > proprietary sources used to develop the font in the first place. > > I tend to think that way too. > > However people have pointed out that not all data are stored in the > tradition font. We could add them.
This is genius :-) > FontForge can create a separate table in which it throws some metadata > that might be relevant for future editing of the font. It current > includes things like comments and colors. Dave indicated that guidelines > would be a good thing to include as well. > Anything else that should go there? Um, everything :-) A few things off the top of my head: * Multiple background layers spring immediately to mind. (though FF doesn't support them, I hope it might one day, and FontLab has them, so they might be in a UFO (Erik? :-)) * The "FONTLOG" of OFL fonts. * The "stroke source" if the font is stroke based, made with metafont or kalliculator for example > It is possible to build a font containing both loca/glyf and CFF tables > (so the editable cubic shapes would still be present). I don't know what > a rasterizer would do when confronted by such a beast -- it might be > better to rename the CFF table so it doesn't get used inadvertently _CFF > perhaps. Is it worth having a mode like that? It would make fonts twice as > big, of course. I think such a mode would be worthwhile. Large font filesizes are no problem when the fonts are free, because leaner versions are easy to generate for production use. -- Regards, Dave _______________________________________________ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
