[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Freefont-bugs] Freefont bug: Incorrect character for U+240E SYMBOL

From: ropers
Subject: Re: [Freefont-bugs] Freefont bug: Incorrect character for U+240E SYMBOL FOR SHIFT OUT
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 17:21:51 +0200

Hi Steve --do you prefer Steve or Stevan, as per your email?--,

Thanks for getting back to me on that. :)

Do you have that link you mentioned, to a recent build?

I couldn't find a more recent release than 2012-05-03, but then I
understand a build isn't necessarily the same thing as a release.

I did find e.g. a FreeSans.sdf file in Subversion
but I haven't really researched how to convert this to ttf. (Any quick
hints on that?*)

I have found a FreeSans.ttf file in CVS
but this is again from 2012. (I did see the note about the CVS->SVN
switchover <>.)

Will there be another release?

If not, do you have any howtos/instructions that might suit ordinary
users wishing to update their Freefont to the latests and greatest (on
Unix-likes, e.g. Ubuntu, OpenBSD, etc.)?
I have read INSTALL, which mentions a freefont-ttf.tar.gz, which I
haven't however been able to find for anything more recent than 2012.

I also suspect that even if I'm able to "roll my own" from what is
there, probably many distros etc. won't update to the latest and
greatest unless there's another release.

Thanks for your time.

Thanks and regards,

(Ian Ropers)

Apparently there are online sdf to ttf converters, but I'm not sure if
their use complies with both the GPL and their T&Cs. (Beware the
  I've also tried  manual conversion by opening sdf files in (the to
me somewhat alien) FontForge and then generating a ttf from there,
a) I'm not sure if I should worry about the warning saying the Em-Size
1000 isn't a power of two (should it be 1024?),
b) even after ignoring that warning, I still got a lengthy list of errors, and
c) even when unchecking the Validation box, I still got an error about
Bengali that I didn't understand.
So while I can kinda, sorta create a FreeSans.ttf with the correct
U+240E glyph, I really have no idea what I'm doing, and if the font
I'm generating isn't worse than the old one in a hundred places, the
latter's incorrect U+240E glyph notwithstanding. So rolling my own is
probably not the best option for me or most people; grabbing a release
would be a gazillion times easier. Of course releases don't grow on
trees either, and I know that, so please don't misconstrue this as
whining and making demands; let's just file this under "user
experience feedback", and you do you, no pressure. ;)

On 04/09/2019, Steve White <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Ian,
> This problem isn't present in recent builds.  I'll send you a link.
> Don't hesitate to file a bug report (preferably at
> if you see any further
> issues!
> Thanks!
> On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 3:01 AM ropers <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Hello GNU/Stevan :),
>> I think I have found a bug in GNU FreeFont, or specifically in the
>> FreeMono, FreeSans and FreeSerif fonts:
>> The character for U+240E SYMBOL FOR SHIFT OUT appears to be incorrect in
>> those.
>> The two small constituent letters you define for that character are SS
>> (two esses).
>> The correct letters should be SO (ess-oh). Compare
>> <>.
>> While it's true that the actual C0 control codes[1] remain unprintable
>> in Unicode, getting this right is nonetheless somewhat fundamental,
>> since these Control Pictures[2] are supposed to be printable direct
>> equivalents to the corresponding unprintable standard ASCII
>> characters. So for applications where unprintable ASCII characters
>> need to be printed, this is a very basic part of the ASCII character
>> set that your fonts are currently getting wrong.
>> I am sadly not sufficiently familiar with the somewhat less modern and
>> quirky FontForge UI to be able to fix this myself in a hurry,
>> otherwise I would have offered a fix and not just a bug report. In
>> theory copying and pasting the little O from U+2401 SYMBOL FOR START
>> OF HEADING to U+240E SYMBOL FOR SHIFT OUT could be enough; actually I
>> did manage to do that, but I couldn't get things aligned correctly and
>> I am not enough of a typographer to even know what the correct
>> alignment would be, so I should probably leave that to someone who
>> knows what they're doing, so over to you it is.
>> Related info:
>> [1] <>
>> [2] <>
>> <>
>> Thanks for your attention to this.
>> Thanks and regards,
>> Ian
>> (Ian Ropers)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]