Re: [Pfaedit-devel] Re: Re: Choosing an extension for bitmap-only SFNTs

[Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.jussieu.fr>]

GW> Is there a real need to distinguish between bitmap only and ouline
GW> sfnts?

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.

GW> I presume that an .otb font would just have EBDT/EBLC and I should not
GW> generate a dummy glyf/loca/EBSC?

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.)

On the other hand, the code will accept any font that FreeType 2.1.4
will recognise as a bitmap font.  I originally tested with
pfaedit-generated fonts, although I haven't tested against pfaedit
recently.  (Will do before release.)

GW> I presume also that it should have a head table and not a bhed, and
GW> EBDT/EBLC rather than bdat/bloc?

That's what I'm doing, although I guess that bdat would work just as well.

Thanks for your help, George.

                                        Juliusz
_______________________________________________
Forum mailing list
Forum@XFree86.Org
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum