On 2017-04-06 09:27, Jonathan Kew wrote:
> On 06/04/2017 15:53, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
>> 2017-04-06 15:31 GMT+02:00 Ulrike Fischer <ne...@nililand.de>:
>>> Am Thu, 6 Apr 2017 07:10:06 -0600 schrieb Bobby de Vos:
>>>> On 2017-04-06 02:39, Ulrike Fischer wrote:
>>>>> On the whole I would agree with the debian answer: applications like
>>>>> xetex/xdvipdfmx shouldn't try to use fonts it can't handle.
>>>> Thank you for your response. I will file a bug with Debian at some
>>> Why Debian? I meant it is more a xetex problem so I would add a bug
>>> report there.
>> This is certainly not a Debian bug, the font is installed as it
>> should be.
>> The problem is that it is not supported by XeTeX/xdvipdfmx and it is
>> a question
>> what XeTeX should do if fontconfig offers an unsupported font
> Well... while I agree that we should do something in XeTeX to handle
> this, I also think it is a poor decision on Debian's side to mix .woff
> files, which are explicitly intended for web deployment, alongside
> .otf files that are expected to be available in the local GUI desktop
> environment. These are two distinct categories of resource, and it
> would be more appropriate to keep them separate.
> More generally, I think it's a bad idea for a distro or package or
> whatever to install multiple copies of the "same" font (e.g. both
> TrueType and Type1 formats) with the same name where fontconfig will
> find them both.
I talked with Keith, the author of fontconfig while at DebConf, and he
agrees that multiple copies of the same font should not be installed
where fontconfig can find them.
He also thinks fontconfig/freetype should be enhanced so TrueType (and I
would add OpenType) fonts are prioritized before WOFF.
Either of these changes would solve the issue I have reported. He went
on to say that xdvipdfmx should handle WOFF. Maybe a font designed would
only release a WOFF, and a TrueType would not be available. A few more
details are at
Bobby de Vos
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: