Re: [Pfaedit-devel] Re: [forum] Re: Choosing an extension for bitmap-only SFNTs
GW Ok, I'm currently posting a new build of PfaEdit which will generate GW embedded bitmap opentype fonts with extension .otb Considering the lack of serious objection to .otb, I consider it adopted. GW (PfaEdit is currently generating 'OTTO', which is appropriate for GW opentype fonts). I'm simply using the TrueType 1.0 signature. Windows refuses these fonts anyway. Juliusz ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [forum] Re: Choosing an extension for bitmap-only SFNTs
As far as I know, Microsoft doesn't use bitmap-only sfnts -- they use scalable fonts throughout, nowadays, only keeping the legacy .FON format for backwards compatibility. TR Windows XP still has Terminal, Courier, MS Serif and MS Sans TR Serif, all of which are bitmapped and in common use. Indeed, MS TR Sans Serif is the default font for dialog boxes unless otherwise TR overridden. They're still .FON files, not bitmap-only SFNTs. Juliusz ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Pfaedit-devel] Re: [forum] Re: Choosing an extension for bitmap-only SFNTs
That was the initial plan, but I found out that having FreeType grok such fonts required more changes than David Turner was wililng to make in the 2.1.* series. So I'm generating a zero-length glyf and a one-entry loca. (No EBSC indeed.) Ok, I'm currently posting a new build of PfaEdit which will generate embedded bitmap opentype fonts with extension .otb which contain dummy 'glyf' and 'loca' tables (and no 'EBSC'). Let me know if there are any problems with this or if the format changes over time. I feel that having the same extension for bitmap and scalable fonts is confusing -- without a naming extension, you need tools such as ftdump to find out what your fonts are. In the same vein, perhaps it would be appropriate to give such fonts a different version string in the offset table at the beginning of the font (PfaEdit is currently generating 'OTTO', which is appropriate for opentype fonts). Should this change too? 'OTBO'? or will that need too large a change to freetype? ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Pfaedit-devel] Re: [forum] Re: Choosing an extension for bitmap-only SFNTs
After reading carefully the replies, the current front-runner is ``otb'', for ``OpenType Bitmap''. Is that extension used up yet? DD With the proviso that there has been some research to determine DD that nobody else is already using an extension for fonts like When PfaEdit generates a (non-mac) bitmap only sfnt it currently uses the .ttf extension. This has the advantage that programs (such as windows) that don't know about new extensions will work on these fonts. Is there a real need to distinguish between bitmap only and ouline sfnts? (I presume this question was answered earlier in the discussion but I wasn't involved) (And even though Windows doesn't use bitmap only fonts it is possible to trick it into accepted them by adding a dummy glyph table with a lot of spaces, and an embedded bitmap scaling table that maps all (likely) pixel sizes to one of the bitmap strikes) I presume that an .otb font would just have EBDT/EBLC and I should not generate a dummy glyf/loca/EBSC? I presume also that it should have a head table and not a bhed, and EBDT/EBLC rather than bdat/bloc? They also have a bizarre encoding of SFNTs on Mac OS X. The extension is ``.dfont'', and is not specific to bitmap-only fonts. (It's no more bizzare than the old resource format, the two are almost exactly the same except dfonts live in the data fork rather than the resource fork -- I'd say that makes it a little less bizarre:) But you are right, dfont would be an inappropriate extension. (Both freetype and pfaedit should now be able to handle the dfont format even on non mac systems) If anyone knows of a system that does use file extensions and that does use bitmap-only SFNTs, I'm quite willing to be compatible. I know of none. ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [forum] Re: Choosing an extension for bitmap-only SFNTs
On 14 Jul 2003 01:48:52 +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: [XFree86 is switching to SFNT wrappers for bitmap fonts; what is a suitable extension? Adding the FreeType and PFAEdit lists in case they have something to say.] David, As far as I know, Microsoft doesn't use bitmap-only sfnts -- they use scalable fonts throughout, nowadays, only keeping the legacy .FON format for backwards compatibility. Unless I misunderstand the context, which is entirely possible, this is not so. Windows XP still has Terminal, Courier, MS Serif and MS Sans Serif, all of which are bitmapped and in common use. Indeed, MS Sans Serif is the default font for dialog boxes unless otherwise overridden. -- - Tim Roberts, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providenza Boekelheide, Inc. ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [forum] Choosing an extension for bitmap-only SFNTs
On 10 Jul 2003, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: I need to pick an extension for the bitmap-only SFNT fonts[1]. While these fonts use the same file format as TrueType and OpenType fonts, they do not fullfill the requirements of any of the four (!) TrueType specifications. Apple calls them ``sfnt-wrapped bitmap fonts'', pfaedit calls them ``bitmap-only TTF fonts'', and Microsoft do not call them at all. These fonts are refused by Windows XP. Because users expect files with a ttf or otf extension to contain scalable fonts, they need to have a different extension. Such fonts are used by Apple (who do not use file extensions), but not by Microsoft (who do); hence, I believe I need to pick a new one. I suggest they should have the extension ``.sfnt'', with ``.sfn'' being recognised for compatibility with 8+3 systems. I see that Julian also knows about .snf fonts (I think that suggestion that anyone still using them should move *into* the 1980s is a little unfair - they need to move *out of* the 1980s). Still .sfn is too close to .snf; I vote for .sfnt. Andrew C Aitchison ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [forum] Choosing an extension for bitmap-only SFNTs
I prefer .sfnt as well. we shouldn't feel limited by DOS. Just my 2 cents... Alex --- Andrew C Aitchison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10 Jul 2003, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: I need to pick an extension for the bitmap-only SFNT fonts[1]. While these fonts use the same file format as TrueType and OpenType fonts, they do not fullfill the requirements of any of the four (!) TrueType specifications. Apple calls them ``sfnt-wrapped bitmap fonts'', pfaedit calls them ``bitmap-only TTF fonts'', and Microsoft do not call them at all. These fonts are refused by Windows XP. Because users expect files with a ttf or otf extension to contain scalable fonts, they need to have a different extension. Such fonts are used by Apple (who do not use file extensions), but not by Microsoft (who do); hence, I believe I need to pick a new one. I suggest they should have the extension ``.sfnt'', with ``.sfn'' being recognised for compatibility with 8+3 systems. I see that Julian also knows about .snf fonts (I think that suggestion that anyone still using them should move *into* the 1980s is a little unfair - they need to move *out of* the 1980s). Still .sfn is too close to .snf; I vote for .sfnt. Andrew C Aitchison ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [forum] Choosing an extension for bitmap-only SFNTs
Plus most users will be on some un*x anyway. Also users generally don't have a problem with .html vs .htm and .jpeg vs .jpg, at least in my experience. Alex --- Peter \Firefly\ Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Alex Deucher wrote: I prefer .sfnt as well. we shouldn't feel limited by DOS. Especially since it was fixed in DOS in '95 (Win 95) (*). There are also TSRs and drivers that will provide the long file names for just about any DOS, using the standard file format and the standard extended APIs. As far as I know DJGPP will use that API if the underlying DOS supports it. So why perform a voluntary lobotomy with regards to the file names? -Peter *) It's been 6+ years since I played with this in my DOS programs so my memory is hazy about whether or not MS-DOS 7.0 /without/ the graphical DOS extender (Win95) also provided those APIs. I read something yesterday that indicated that it didn't. But most people would use DOS from their Windows shells and the rest could use the aforementioned TSRs and drivers. ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
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. -keith ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Choosing an extension for bitmap-only SFNTs
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 01:22:49AM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: I need to pick an extension for the bitmap-only SFNT fonts[1]. While these fonts use the same file format as TrueType and OpenType fonts, they do not fullfill the requirements of any of the four (!) TrueType specifications. Apple calls them ``sfnt-wrapped bitmap fonts'', pfaedit calls them ``bitmap-only TTF fonts'', and Microsoft do not call them at all. These fonts are refused by Windows XP. Because users expect files with a ttf or otf extension to contain scalable fonts, they need to have a different extension. Such fonts are used by Apple (who do not use file extensions), but not by Microsoft (who do); hence, I believe I need to pick a new one. I suggest they should have the extension ``.sfnt'', with ``.sfn'' being recognised for compatibility with 8+3 systems. Opinions collected so far: - David Dawes doesn't have an opinion either way, but he'd like me to consult with this list first. With the proviso that there has been some research to determine that nobody else is already using an extension for fonts like this, and that the extension we choose isn't being used elsewhere to mean something else. David -- David Dawes Founder/committer/developer The XFree86 Project www.XFree86.org/~dawes ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Choosing an extension for bitmap-only SFNTs
I need to pick an extension for the bitmap-only SFNT fonts[1]. While these fonts use the same file format as TrueType and OpenType fonts, they do not fullfill the requirements of any of the four (!) TrueType specifications. Apple calls them ``sfnt-wrapped bitmap fonts'', pfaedit calls them ``bitmap-only TTF fonts'', and Microsoft do not call them at all. These fonts are refused by Windows XP. Because users expect files with a ttf or otf extension to contain scalable fonts, they need to have a different extension. Such fonts are used by Apple (who do not use file extensions), but not by Microsoft (who do); hence, I believe I need to pick a new one. I suggest they should have the extension ``.sfnt'', with ``.sfn'' being recognised for compatibility with 8+3 systems. Opinions collected so far: - David Dawes doesn't have an opinion either way, but he'd like me to consult with this list first. - Egbert Eich would prefer ``.sfn'' to be the default, as he believes this will lessen his support load. (He's probably right, but I dislike making MS-DOS the default.) I'll probably submit code to handle the new extension these next days, and would be glad to hear from you as soon as possible. Juliusz [1] http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~jch/software/xfree86-bitmap-fonts.html ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
