[ft-devel] sbix originOffsetX/Y interpretation.

2019-03-13 Thread Ben Wagner
I was making a test sbix font where I wanted the image not to have its
lower left corner at 0,0 (which seems to be what most sbix fonts do). I
ended up with different results from FreeType, CoreGraphics, and
DirectWrite/Edge. The specification is difficult to interpret so I opened
an issue for clarification at [1] where I summarize what seems to be the
current state of sbix image placement and how the various implementations
end up drawing the image where they do.

Of direct interest to FreeType is that CoreGraphics and DirectWrite/Edge
interpret positive values of originOffsetY to move the image visually up.
It appears the FreeType is currently using this to move the image visually
down (which is what the specification seems to currently imply). With a
sign reversal, FreeType would use this value in the same direction as the
other implementations and fully match DirectWrite/Edge.

Unfortunately, it turns out that CoreGraphics uses a different origin. It
appears that if there is a entry for the glyph in the 'glyf' table, the
lower left of the bbox of that glyph is used as the origin. This seems a
strange offset, but CoreGraphics is probably the one to follow for what
'sbix' does, especially since some authoring tools document this so some
fonts probably depend on this behavior. However, there don't appear to be
that many fonts which depend on this behavior (possibly because all
implementations are currently different), at least not yet.

That being said, convincing CoreGraphics to change when it is the de facto
specification for sbix would be difficult. As a result, my current
suggestion is just to document the current CoreGraphics behavior and
clarify the specification. If there are objections, better proposals, or
other comments, please see [1].

[1] https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/typography-issues/issues/191
___
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel


Re: [ft-devel] Improve the 'ftinspect' demo program

2019-03-13 Thread Werner LEMBERG


> I had a look at the GSoC project ideas, and am interested in
> "Improve the 'ftinspect' demo program".

Great!

> I've taken a look at the freetype2-demos repository and the current
> state of ftinspect.  I would like to ask a few questions:
> 
> 1) This project has been in the ideas list for a while now.  Is it
>low priority or has its scope changed?

No and no.  It's just a lack of time that there isn't further
development.

> 2) I see that there are a bunch of CLI utilities in the demos
>repository (ftlint, ftbench, ftdebug, ftdump,ftvalid).  Should
>they be considered for GUIfication?

The features of those programs (which partially overlap) should be
eventually integrated into `ftinspect'.


Werner

___
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel


[ft-devel] Improve the 'ftinspect' demo program

2019-03-13 Thread Triplex
Hello,

I had a look at the GSoC project ideas, and am interested in "Improve the
'ftinspect' demo program". I'm currently pursuing my bachelors in Computer
Science.

I've taken a look at the freetype2-demos repository and the current state
of ftinspect. I would like to ask a few questions:

1) This project has been in the ideas list for a while now. Is it low
priority or has its scope changed?

2) I see that there are a bunch of CLI utilities in the demos repository
(ftlint, ftbench, ftdebug, ftdump,ftvalid). Should they be considered for
GUIfication?

I look forward to hearing back.

Thanks,
-- 
Veeki Yadav
___
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel