correctly?
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 12:08 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le samedi 19 juillet 2008 à 23:00 +0300, Vasile Gaburici a écrit :
Briefly, I want to alter the code point of a request before passing it
to the font library (freetype2 in my case). The recoding that needs
Editing OpenType feature tables with fontforge is a big PITA. Adding a
locl table to Linux Libertine, see
[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N/Tasks/Ro_fonts#Linux_Libertine],
took me three hours (testing included). And that just for the regular
font. Parts of the table are (or rather should be)
P.S.: here is a sample feature file for Adobe Minion Pro (2004) made
public by Adobe:
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?233@@.3bb58628!enclosure=.3bb58629
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Vasile Gaburici [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Editing OpenType feature tables with fontforge is a big PITA. Adding
I've found CFF OpenType versions of the ghostscript URW fonts. AFAICT,
they are well done: have kerning pairs (using the correct 'kern'
feature for CFF files), has ligatures etc. They also fix the missing
mappings for Romanian (no locl table yet...). The only troublesome
point may that the author
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 17:35, Vasile Gaburici wrote:
I exported a GSUB table to a .fea file and edited it there. But
importing back doesn't work. When I click on the Import right above
Save Feature File nothing happens.
That's not what import is supposed to do.
It should not have
:15 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le lundi 21 juillet 2008 à 00:48 +0300, Vasile Gaburici a écrit :
I've found CFF OpenType versions of the ghostscript URW fonts. AFAICT,
they are well done: have kerning pairs (using the correct 'kern'
feature for CFF files), has ligatures etc
Stupid gmail doesn't reply to all recipients by default, so see below.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Vasile Gaburici [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: the ivory tower and the bazaar]
They say a picture is worth a thousand words.
[http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gaburici/linux-fonts.png
Since we are debating the state of Fedora fonts, I'd also like to add
that Fedora should ship as many OpenType fonts as possible. Why?
Because it (finally!) includes a decent bundle of TeX (texlive), which
contains XeTeX -- a version of TeX that can use advanced OpenType
features directly. XeTeX
I've got some expert comments on the fonts. There are some issues with
the conversion...
Details here: http://www.typophile.com/node/47578
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Vasile Gaburici [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect the person that did the work used his employers' (very)
non-free
Most people using OOo probably don't have clue what features OpenType
provides, mostly because they've only seen Arial and Times New Roman.
So I don't expect widespread requests from the userbase...
Btw, is there a way to vote for feature requests, or do we have to
spam them on the forums?
On
I'll gladly do some testing. As for the packaging, given that it's a
derivative of Liberation, perhaps someone from Redhat will step up and
include them in the official package...
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Gustavo Ferreira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i have worked on a derivative version of
Here's something that will make Nicolas proud. Following the
discussion from [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455981]
I've looked at the level of support in Fedora of combining diacritics
for Romanian. The summary:
- Charis Doulos SIL work perfectly
- Linux Libertine works too, but
What are the implications of a GPL'd pdf? Having to give the (LaTeX or
whatever) source? Having to allow others to modify said source?
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Nicolas Mailhot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Michal,
Many thanks for sending those (and CC-ing the list). Many thanks to
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Nicolas Mailhot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In practice you can approximate cubic splines by just cutting cubic
segments in many quadratic ones, which font editors like fontforge do
automatically, and at the sizes text is typically rendered there's no
visible
-- Forwarded message --
From: Vasile Gaburici [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts?
To: Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree with all your points. Regarding point 7, I'm going to
emphasize, as you did previously
I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not
raw data of the URW fonts, otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL,
and could not change the license... As you know, font looks cannot
be copyrighted in the U.S. (not sure about Europe though).
So, the main question is: can
] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 18:29 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote:
The GPL copyright holder for the original Type 1 fonts is URW, so they
would have to send GUST notice of derived work infringement. Correct?
To initiate legal proceedings, yes, but it doesn't mean that Fedora can
distribute
Maybe somebody on this list is willing to sponsor me on this package:
-- Forwarded message --
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Subject: [Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for
handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not so fast. I have some details about this TeX font business, but I
won't have time to write them down until this evening.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Given what happened there:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456580
I'm
[-a attach.xml] [-t volt.txt] infile.ttf outfile.ttf
Compiles volt source into OT tables in the font. Think of this as a
3rd party command-line version of MS VOLT.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Nicolas Spalinger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Crossland wrote:
2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Nicolas Mailhot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
— We should not hide general-purpose fonts in app-specific directories.
TEX should use system fonts directly.
XeTeX can do that. TeX probably NEVER will because that violates TDS.
If you don't what that means, then don't
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/25 Vasile Gaburici [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I second the idea that TeX ought to be an exception to the guideline
not hide general-purpose fonts in app-specific directories; TeX
predates all other programs in a GNU/Linux
My lack of legal brain is confused on this. If URW doesn't change the
license and it remains purely GPL, but the other contributors agree to
re-license their parts as GLP+FontException, then what is there to be
gained by this? Isn't the user bound by most restrictive license in
the package, that
I need to add line to /usr/share/texmf/dvips/config/config.ps to get
some extra functionality enabled for lcdf-typetools, namely Type 42
support. The config.ps file is properly marked as a config file in
texlive-texmf-dvips. Is there some infrastructure that's normally used
to hack config files or
Seems to me this way: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6252671/description.html
But IANAL...
___
Fedora-fonts-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
It's nice to see that the first ( only?) FOSS OpenType math font,
(and by that I mean one that has a math script, like Cambria Math),
has been added to rawhide. But the font is currently useless in
Fedora, because (i) our XeTeX is too old, and (ii) the unicode-math
XeLaTeX package is not
of this year,
together with the release of the GUST Math font.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 05:41 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote:
It's nice to see that the first ( only?) FOSS OpenType math font,
STIXFonts? Well, not quite FOSS
, Vasile Gaburici [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The STIX fonts do **NOT** currently have the math OpenType script.
What this means is that they have nice collection of glyphs, but no
special layout features, so they're pretty useless for actually
typesetting something with them. The math script, aka MATH
:
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gaburici/uni-asana.pdf
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gaburici/uni-cambria.pdf
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gaburici/uni-stix.pdf
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Vasile Gaburici [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It turns out that STIX beta fonts have a modicum of MATH table (it
didn't occur
or constructions are
completely empty. Calling this release a beta was a bit of a
stretch...
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Vasile Gaburici [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unlike Office 2007, XeTeX checks if a font contains the math script,
not the MATH table to decide whether it will work or not for Unicode
math
No, there actualy is some (unofficial?) MS documentation for MATH
tables. It has been seen by both George Williams (fontforge) and
Apostolos Syropoulos (asana).
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/8/13 Vasile Gaburici [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The math
31 matches
Mail list logo
