On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 09:19:26PM +0100, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> On 2013-12-01 Khaled Hosny wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 11:21:30AM +0200, Khaled Hosny wrote:
> >
> > Interestingly, after I patched Sorts Mill (a FontForge fork) to avoid
> > duplicates[1] I ended up with a ‘dotlessi.sc’ glyph,
On 2013-12-01 Khaled Hosny wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 11:21:30AM +0200, Khaled Hosny wrote:
>
> Interestingly, after I patched Sorts Mill (a FontForge fork) to avoid
> duplicates[1] I ended up with a ‘dotlessi.sc’ glyph, as it turns out
> the font has a → later on, so that is
> where Font
On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 11:21:30AM +0200, Khaled Hosny wrote:
> It is not clear to me how FontLab arrived to the dotlessi name from the
> GSUB table, but I need to look into the font a bit more closer.
Interestingly, after I patched Sorts Mill (a FontForge fork) to avoid
duplicates[1] I ended up w
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:35:01PM +0100, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> On 2013-11-27 Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> > On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> > > On 11/27/2013 10:20 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> > > > On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> > > >> On 11/27/2013 9:53 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> > > >>> On 2013-11-27
On 11/27/2013 11:35 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
On 2013-11-27 Jan Tosovsky wrote:
On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
On 11/27/2013 10:20 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
On 11/27/2013 9:53 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
On 11/27/2013 8:44 PM, Jan Tos
On 2013-11-27 Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> > On 11/27/2013 10:20 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> > > On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> > >> On 11/27/2013 9:53 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> > >>> On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> > On 11/27/2013 8:44 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> >
On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> On 11/27/2013 10:20 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> > On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> >> On 11/27/2013 9:53 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> >>> On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> On 11/27/2013 8:44 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> >
> > during my attempts to patch the P
On 11/27/2013 10:20 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
On 11/27/2013 9:53 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
On 11/27/2013 8:44 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
during my attempts to patch the Palatino's dotless 'i' I found that
this font is parsed incorrectl
On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> On 11/27/2013 9:53 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> > On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> >> On 11/27/2013 8:44 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> >>>
> >>> during my attempts to patch the Palatino's dotless 'i' I found that
> >>> this font is parsed incorrectly by ConTeXt.
> >>>
>
On 11/27/2013 9:53 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
On 11/27/2013 8:44 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
during my attempts to patch the Palatino's dotless 'i' I found that
this font is parsed incorrectly by ConTeXt.
Comparing index/name info of individual glyphs in the font soft
On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> On 11/27/2013 8:44 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> >
> > during my attempts to patch the Palatino's dotless 'i' I found that
> > this font is parsed incorrectly by ConTeXt.
> >
> > Comparing index/name info of individual glyphs in the font software
> > and resulting pala
On 11/27/2013 8:44 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
Dear All,
during my attempts to patch the Palatino's dotless 'i' I found that this
font is parsed incorrectly by ConTeXt.
Comparing index/name info of individual glyphs in the font software and
resulting pala.tma file there is the following difference:
Dear All,
during my attempts to patch the Palatino's dotless 'i' I found that this
font is parsed incorrectly by ConTeXt.
Comparing index/name info of individual glyphs in the font software and
resulting pala.tma file there is the following difference:
Index | Name - font| Name - tma
1110 |
13 matches
Mail list logo
