Re: [Devel] VER-2-1-2-RC1 tag created

[Owen Taylor]

George Williams <address@hidden> writes:

> At 09:58 AM 6/21/2002 +0200, you wrote:
> >     It may be possible to tune the Postscript hinter to deal with them in
> >     more pleasant ways, since after all the choice of freely 
> > re-distributable
> >     fonts is rather small. However, the initial goal for the
> > Postscript hinter
> >     was to perform well on well-hinted fonts, not buggy ones...
> Auto-hinting with PfaEdit should get rid of any erroneous hints, and
> is a fairly easy thing to do. Can we convince the ghostscript people
> to distribute slightly modified fonts?
> 
> To me that seems a better solution than putting a kludge into freetype...

While they were initially donated to the Ghostscript project, they
aren't actually packaged with ghostscript in most cases any more;
so if there was a canonical good version of the URW fonts, I think
they would get used.

And actually, there are a whole bunch of _different_ versions of the
fonts floating around already; not a good thing.

The version we (Red Hat) ship is an earlier version of the
cyrllic-added "URW" fonts at:

 ftp://ftp.gnome.ru/fonts/urw/release/

This set has latin-2 glyphs as well; I don't know whether they
are the same or different latin-2 glyphs as the one in the
"EE" set of URW fonts that SuSE ships. (Those latin 2 fonts
were a further donation from URW.)

In brief experimentation, the autohints that pfaedit generates
don't seem to be that different from the ones in the fonts
I have, but I don't really know anything about the subject.

Regards,
                                        Owen

(I suppose I couldn't convince you to use Qt or GTK+ for
a future version of pfaedit?... it's such a nice program
otherwise... ;-)