[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [ft-devel] Patented bytecode interpretter and fallback to autohinter

From: Behdad Esfahbod
Subject: Re: [ft-devel] Patented bytecode interpretter and fallback to autohinter
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:01:58 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100120 Fedora/3.0.1-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.1

On 02/24/2010 06:19 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> Not really.  A yes/partial/no answer should be enough.
> why do you need a `partial' if there is no possibility to find out
> which ranges are hinter or unhinted?

What I want to use this info for is to be able to write configurations that
say "if the font doesn't have bytecode hinting, then enable the autohinter".
Now one should ask where should the line for "has / doesn't has" be drawn...
I don't know.  What I know is that:

  - A font having hints for all but a few glyphs should be considered yes.

  - A font having hints for just a few should be considered no.

No idea about the in-between.  That's what I called "maybe".  But it's not a
very flexible API.  Another way would be to get the number of hinted glyphs.
I'm not sure.


reply via email to

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