Re: [cjk] On modifying non-compliant fonts Re: texlive svn write access Fw: Re: revisiting ttf2tfm and dvipdfmx

[Werner LEMBERG]

> FWIW, the "abort on unknown post table version" issue (instead of
> "treat unknown as 00030000 with a warning and continue") is
> wide-spread, and located at - by grep'ing through:
> 
> texk/web2c/pdftexdir/writettf.c
> texk/web2c/pdftexdir/ttf2afm.c
> texk/web2c/luatexdir/font/writettf.w
> texk/xdvipdfmx/src/tt_post.c
> texk/dvipdfmx/src/tt_post.c
> 
> I have certainly seen the 1st and last - and got around them by
> editing those 2 fonts *as a proof of concept*. I don't see why
> unknown post table version should cause an abort, given that just
> flipping one byte to v3 works. Obviously neither pdftex nor dvipdfmx
> are using or needing any information from the post table.

I fully agree that modifying a font is a last-resort solution which
should be avoided.

It's a question of philosophy whether an implementation of a TTF
parser is `strict', rejecting non-compliant fonts.  A few years ago, I
was on the strict side.  Meanwhile, I've changed my mind, and I'm
modifying FreeType if such a compatibility issue is easily fixable.
For example, if a font gets handled correctly with either Acrobat or
is accepted by the MS TrueType rasterizer, FreeType should do the
same.


    Werner