Re: Removing ghostscript-fonts package

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


----- Mail original -----
De: "David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]" 

> If you wish, we could create a BlueJeans meeting
> (open for everyone) to go through these guidelines and fix them together.
> ;) I unfortunately don't have right to edit the wiki, nor I want to mess
> with something which you maintain(?).​

I'm generally OK with people cleaning up in my place :) and will try to help if someone sets un a cleanup session.

However as official guidelines they are locked (even against changes from the original author). Changing them requires creating a draft of the changes somewhere else and then asking FPC to replace the existing guidelines with the new version.

​> I'm not proposing abandoning what we have in Fedora. I would like to just
> to have the FPG updated. For example IIRC, there was a suggestion somewhere
> there, to use fontforge to display the font family, and then to use that
> font family name for the font subpackage. However, this contradicts what
> you wrote about the CSS model and the width/weight/slant. That's why I
> think we should update the FPG and unite them. ;)​

For "good"   fonts using the name displayed in fontforge would be OK

For "broken" fonts fontforge will just display the broken metadata in the font file.

Besides legacy formats like Postscript have very limited metadata possibilities, even though fontconfig hides those from apps by emulating modern font naming even for legacy fonts. So you need the naming as interpreted by fontconfig not the naming inside the font files themselves.

And even then fontconfig does not autofix all the kinds of brokeness, it needs manual declarations in fontconfig xml files to handle some of them. There was talk some years ago to implement full naming autofixing in fontconfig, but unfortunately and IIRC it got nowhere (the Microsoft WWS draft documents pretty completely the algorithm to implement, and modern Microsoft font libs do implement it).

That's a pity because it would remove the need for manual fontconfig overrides except in the most extreme cases, and the guidelines could be simplified in "just use the font family naming as outputed by fontconfig".

> > 4. However there are many broken fonts out there. The metadata of actual
> > font files may be suboptimal upstream, requiring font packagers to
> > understand the limits of ideal (application-wise) font families, and fixing
> > the metadata of the fonts we ship either by patching the fonts of via
> > fontconfig directives. T

​​> I'm not aware of this being in FPG.

It is in FPG (the short § about font families). Much more succinctly, because I was less aware at the time of the many ways people choose to misinterpret that, and refuse to read the numerous detailed Adobe and Microsoft documents that describe OpenType naming best practices and why deviating from them breaks some application workflows.

​> Again, could we schedule a meeting for all fonts maintainers to discuss
> this, and update the FPG if needed? And maybe create some Fedora project
> for this, and start working on these changes for F28?​

Sure, there are no huge technical problems, it's just a lot of tedious cleanup work, and the more the merrier for this kind of activity. 


Nicolas Mailhot
fonts mailing list -- fonts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to fonts-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Font Configuration]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux