We don't need more config. We have enough ideas to get the performance boost while handling bad fonts if we decide to. But I agree with Keith, I think we should just ship without blanks and deal with repercussions after.
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 16:42:53 -0400, Keith Packard wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Should the extra validation be controlled by some kind of config
>> option?
>
> One could imagine a separate tool which would scan a font and display
> inconsistencies. We could encourage font packagers to use that tool
> when building packages so that distributions would at least be able
> to tell if there were broken fonts and perhaps provide a way to
> report bugs upstream.
And for those that remain unfixed, how about segregating them in a
separate directory, using an extra attribute on the <dir> directive:
<dir assume_well_formed="yes|no">
where the “assume_well_formed” directive defaults to “no” if omitted.
That way the known-good fonts can be put in their own directories with
assume_well_formed="yes", and we get the speedup from bypassing the
extra checks on them, at least.
_______________________________________________
Fontconfig mailing list
Fontconfig@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig
--
behdad
http://behdad.org/
http://behdad.org/
_______________________________________________ Fontconfig mailing list Fontconfig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig
