I am very sure PHP can zip read zipped files, tarball and read tarballs. It really should not be a big deal expanding ccHost to do this.
Brendan On Oct 25, 2008, at 12:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Send Openfontlibrary mailing list submissions to > openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Openfontlibrary digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Font formats accepted by OFLB (Ed Trager) > 2. Re: Font formats accepted by OFLB (Karl Berry) > 3. Re: Font formats accepted by OFLB (Mark Leisher) > 4. Re: Font formats accepted by OFLB (George Williams) > 5. Re: Font formats accepted by OFLB (Christopher Fynn) > 6. Re: Font formats accepted by OFLB (Ben Weiner) > 7. Re: Font formats accepted by OFLB (Ben Laenen) > 8. Re: Font formats accepted by OFLB (Ben Weiner) > 9. Re: Font formats accepted by OFLB (Ben Weiner) > 10. Re: Font formats accepted by OFLB (Nicolas Mailhot) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:48:38 -0400 > From: "Ed Trager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB > To: "Ben Weiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Open Font Library list <openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org> > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hi, Ben, > > Don't forget .ttc true type collections. These will become more > popular in the future, I am sure. > > I second Mark Leisher's suggestion to accept pcf and bdf. > > Some people are going to provide one font in multiple font containers: > i.e., maybe ttf and pcf, or ttf and Postscript. > > But I agree with you that the older Postscript containers are not > needed since OTF can contain Postscript outlines, right? > > Ben Laenen's question is relevant. Perhaps the right tack is for OFLB > to simply "encourage" inclusion of "at least" a ttf container. > > Note however there are legitimate use cases where .bdf or .pcf might > be the first choice container -- for example, a monospaced bitmap > terminal font for Linux, especially for a non-Latin script where there > might not be other choices available. Such a bitmap-only font should > also be packaged in a TTF container, but the main file that will > actually get used by people interested in that font is the bdf or pcf > file. > > > Best - Ed > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Ben Weiner > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hi there, >> >> My proposal for OFLB font uploads in the next version of the site >> is to >> accept >> >> .otf >> .ttf >> >> which are far and away going to be the most widely appreciated, then >> >> .pfa >> .pfm >> .pfb >> .afm >> .bdf >> >> which are Adobe-ish formats that are all in the current site: are >> they >> all needed? >> >> Then the X-Windows format, if it is still in use: >> .pcf >> >> Then humna-readable source: >> .sfd >> >> What else? Metafont files (?.mf)? >> >> A short list is better, I think. Suggestions? >> >> Thanks, >> Ben >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openfontlibrary mailing list >> Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:43:06 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) > Subject: Re: [Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > But I agree with you that the older Postscript containers are not > needed since OTF can contain Postscript outlines, right? > > Technically, sure, but pfb files are still very useful and widely used > -- in the TeX world, at least. Is anything substantial gained by > disallowing them? Actually, I don't see what's gained by disallowing > anything. And, as mentioned, people are really uploading zips anyway, > right? > > Anyway, I haven't seen pfa files used in umpteen years, so if you'd > like > to have a token format to drop, I suggest that one. > > karl > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:12:12 -0600 > From: Mark Leisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB > To: Open Font Library list <openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Ed Trager wrote: >> Note however there are legitimate use cases where .bdf or .pcf might >> be the first choice container -- for example, a monospaced bitmap >> terminal font for Linux, especially for a non-Latin script where >> there >> might not be other choices available. Such a bitmap-only font should >> also be packaged in a TTF container, but the main file that will >> actually get used by people interested in that font is the bdf or pcf >> file. > > Actually, native Linux console bitmap fonts are PSF2 (.psf) fonts. > There > are tools to convert BDF to PSF. > > Perhaps the category should be more general. Accept bitmap fonts. > Those > that can be packaged in a TTF container should have the container and > the original in the zip file. > > Side note: there is persistent user confusion over TTF fonts that only > display properly in one size. They seldom understand they are using a > bitmap font that only comes in one size. > -- > Mark Leisher > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: 24 Oct 2008 20:41:21 -0700 > From: George Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB > To: Ed Trager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Open Font Library list <openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain > > On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 13:48, Ed Trager wrote: >> Such a bitmap-only font should >> also be packaged in a TTF container, > Um, there is no standard sfnt format for a bitmap only font. > Apple supports one format > X11 has its own format (and supports Apple's) > MS has NO bitmap only format. > (and does not support either Apple's or X11's) > > An sfnt container for a bdf file is a bad idea unless you are very > specific about what system you intend it to be used on. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 11:01:08 +0600 > From: Christopher Fynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB > To: Open Font Library list <openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > Ben Weiner wrote: > > ... > >> which are far and away going to be the most widely appreciated, then >> >> .pfa >> .pfm >> .pfb >> .afm > ... > > > Hmm, shouldn't that be something like: either .pfb or .pfa along with > either .pfm or .afm + .inf as a minimum for non OT postscript fonts? > > The font glyph outlines are either in a pfb or a pfa file while the > metrics, kerning and other info for the font are in the corresponding > pfm file or afm + inf files. So you need at least two or three files. > > .pfa = postscript font ascii (Type) > .pfb = postscript font binary (Type 1) > > .pfm = printer font metrics > .afm = adobe font metrics > .inf = font information file > > - Chris > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:43:15 +0100 > From: Ben Weiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB > To: Open Font Library list <openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi, > > Ben Laenen wrote: >> How is this enforced? > ccHost (the site platform) will accept or reject files based on their > extension and, depending on the filetype, will attempt to verify the > ones it does allow. > >> I thought people were uploading zip files >> containing the fonts and all extra files like README and LICENSE. >> > Looks as though in the next OFLB site version we'll have to ask people > to upload individual files. We'd certainly need to unpack archives > if we > allowed them, and ccHost currently cannot see inside tarballs, facts > that together mean we're best avoiding them. > > That's in direct opposition to Nicolas' suggestion, I'm afraid. And I > speak as an enthusiast of archive-uploading. > > The FONTLOG will be stored as metadata associated with the typeface. > Also due to the way cccHost stores uploads. README is anything the > user > puts in the description, for now. License is metadata (and can/ > should of > course be stuck into TTF fonts and their friends). > > Cheers, > Ben > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:12:52 +0200 > From: Ben Laenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB > To: openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On Saturday 25 October 2008, Ben Weiner wrote: >> Looks as though in the next OFLB site version we'll have to ask >> people to upload individual files. We'd certainly need to unpack >> archives if we allowed them, and ccHost currently cannot see inside >> tarballs, facts that together mean we're best avoiding them. > > I completely disagree with that, and it won't work anyway. You assume > that fonts are always one file, or everything could be pushed into one > file. If you look at DejaVu we have a *lot* more, like build files > (Makefile, some scripts to process the fonts when building etc), more > scripts that help in development, and other metadata files like > changelogs, readme, status files etc. > > Other projects have for example Xgridfit files for their hinting, or > other files that are used for building the fonts from source. > > If ccHost cannot handle zipped files, then too bad. Not allowing zip > files to be uploaded would be a major defect of the site. > > Greetings > Ben > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:33:19 +0100 > From: Ben Weiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB > To: Open Font Library list <openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi, > > Ben Laenen wrote: >> On Saturday 25 October 2008, Ben Weiner wrote: >> >>> Looks as though in the next OFLB site version we'll have to ask >>> people to upload individual files. We'd certainly need to unpack >>> archives if we allowed them, and ccHost currently cannot see inside >>> tarballs, facts that together mean we're best avoiding them. >>> >> >> I completely disagree with that, and it won't work anyway. You assume >> that fonts are always one file, or everything could be pushed into >> one >> file. > Never ;-) > > Although that sounds a bit like an archive to me :-) >> If you look at DejaVu we have a *lot* more, like build files >> (Makefile, some scripts to process the fonts when building etc), more >> scripts that help in development, and other metadata files like >> changelogs, readme, status files etc. >> >> Other projects have for example Xgridfit files for their hinting, or >> other files that are used for building the fonts from source. >> > Aha! Source. Nobody's come back to me on that. I know humans can read > .sfd files. What about the 'source' files used by other font-authoring > applications? Do we accept these even thought they're not amenable to > reuse except by people who also own that software? > > If we do decide to accept them, can someone provide a 'Hello > Typographical World' example file for each? I can do Macromedia > Fontographer from my deep-stored Mac OS 8 box, but none of the others. >> If ccHost cannot handle zipped files, then too bad. > It can certainly handle them. What it doesn't do is make them usefully > available in their unscrambled form. It's also not very deft with > tarballs - although it'll accept them by default, you cannot find out > what's inside them (without a plugin of some sort from the future, > AFAIK). > > Incidentally, there is no reason why what I'm informally calling the > 'typeface record' (the basic unit of ccHosting as applied to fonts, eg > http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/OSP/322) should not possess a > mix > of compiled fonts and zipped resources such as the source files and > readmes. Anyone think that's a good idea? > > Cheers, > Ben > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:37:59 +0100 > From: Ben Weiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB > To: Open Font Library list <openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi, > > I wrote: >> Incidentally, there is no reason why what I'm informally calling the >> 'typeface record' (the basic unit of ccHosting as applied to fonts, >> eg >> http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/OSP/322) > Looking at this rather fab typeface, it's clear what a huge chore it > would be to upload the whole family file by file. > > When that plugin from the future is written I will be the first to > plug > it in. Otherwise we'll need a flickr Uploadr style helper app ;-) > > Ben > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:18:52 +0200 > From: Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB > To: Ben Weiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Open Font Library list <openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Le samedi 25 octobre 2008 ? 15:37 +0100, Ben Weiner a ?crit : >> Hi, >> >> I wrote: >>> Incidentally, there is no reason why what I'm informally calling the >>> 'typeface record' (the basic unit of ccHosting as applied to >>> fonts, eg >>> http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/OSP/322) >> Looking at this rather fab typeface, it's clear what a huge chore it >> would be to upload the whole family file by file. > > Download would be no easier. > > Again, one of the big reasons evey distro under the sun bundles DejaVu > nowadays, is that it used early the well known and proven bin > tarball + > source tarball (with build scripts, documentation, detached font > license, versioning, etc) distribution form instead of the usual > "fonts > are special" mess that has everyone but font creators scratching their > heads wondering what they're supposed to make of it. > > It's fairly interesting to note, BTW, that despite all the media > tapage > Liberation is still struggling to get the same adoption rate as DejaVu > http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-family/sampler-UnixResults.shtml > > The only big difference between Liberation and early DejaVu (apart > from > the Red Hat marketing run) was the craptastic way Liberation was > initially published on the web (and it was still better than getting > files one at a time). > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 197 bytes > Desc: Ceci est une partie de message > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?= > Url : > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/openfontlibrary/attachments/20081025/80e752cd/attachment.pgp > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Openfontlibrary mailing list > Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary > > > End of Openfontlibrary Digest, Vol 34, Issue 13 > *********************************************** _______________________________________________ Openfontlibrary mailing list Openfontlibrary@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
