Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
Summary: No OpenType Product: Fedora Version: 9 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: linux-libertine-fonts AssignedTo: frank@scirocco-5v-turbo.de ReportedBy: gaburici@cs.umd.edu QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com,kevin@tummy.com
Description of problem:
OpenType variants of the fonts (available from upstream) are not packaged. These are usable with XeTeX which Fedora now ships in texlive.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2008-07-21 15:38 EST ------- Odd. I see the .otf files in the binary distribution, but they don't seem to be providing the .fea files for otf fonts, and I can't get the sdf files to generate otf files either.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2008-07-21 16:23 EST ------- I've filed a bug with upstream about this issue:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2023902&gr...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From gaburici@cs.umd.edu 2008-07-22 06:52 EST ------- .fea files are an Adobe standard. FontForge can export and import them, but normally stores the OpenType features inside it's own .sfd files, together with the glyphs. So the upstream doesn't need to provide .fea files, although working with text .fea files, like Adobe's foundry does, has some definite advantages. I posted the link to an Adobe ATypl presentation on the fedora-fonts-list on this issue.
As for generating OpenType CFF fonts, I have no trouble doing it from the FontForge "File/Generate Fonts..." menu; just choose "OpenType (CFF)" as output format. My FontForge scripting skills are lacking, so I don't know how to do it non-interactively.
Btw, the link for the bug report doesn't work for me.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2008-07-22 15:11 EST ------- I have tried to generate them via a fontforge script, but it runs into some error condition and fails. I would be happy to talk to fontforge folks and see how to script this, but...
Upstream says:
"I produce them by transforming Libertines EM from 2048 down to 1000 and then with generate font files...."
This means that the otf versions are going to be lower quality and suffer from rounding issues anyhow. Why not just use the ttf ones?
Sorry the link didn't work, sourceforge is junk. It has different links based on if you are logged in or not.
If you go to http://sourceforge.net/projects/linuxlibertine/ and then 'tracker' you should be able to see the bug under "feature requests".
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From gaburici@cs.umd.edu 2008-07-22 17:23 EST ------- Well, I'm currently working with "upstream" Philipp to improve Romanian support. So I had to export the fonts myself to OpenType/CCF. With the 20080607 version of fontforge, I get a warning that 2048 is an unusual value (the usual being 1000), but the export is otherwise successful. E.g. na OTF with support for ROM/locl is here: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gaburici/ro/LinLibertine.otf. It doesn't look to me that any downscaling took place.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From gaburici@cs.umd.edu 2008-07-22 17:31 EST ------- Update: actually for the font I just gave you a link, I do get a warning when I open it in fontforge: "Stack got too big in uniE00A In LinLibertine, in glyph uniE00A, 'CFF ' advance width (1556) and'hmtx' width (2874) do not match. (Subsequent mismatches will not be reported)". The glyph E00A is the Libertine logo, which is quite complex. But other glyphs have no trouble. I'll point Philipp to this thread. Maybe, he can shed some light, or perhaps simplify the logo a bit, so we can get high quality OTF.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-07-22 17:42 EST ------- You don't need OTF for the features you care about. TTF is as much a valid OpenType format as OTF.
2048 is the default TrueType grid. That strongly hints the font was designed for the TrueType format. By converting to OTF you're winning absolutely nothing quality-wise (and lose OO.o compatibility).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From gaburici@cs.umd.edu 2008-07-22 17:47 EST ------- I know that TTF is valid OpenType, but the curves are not cubic in TT, are they?
I checked the E00A glyph in my font and the original, and mine cannot be displayed by pango-view, so fontforge complains for good reason.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-07-22 18:27 EST ------- Just changing the container format to OTF won't transform quadratic splines in cubic you know.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From gaburici@cs.umd.edu 2008-07-22 19:13 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=312405) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=312405&action=view) Screenshot for the unbelievers.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From gaburici@cs.umd.edu 2008-07-22 19:15 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9)
Just changing the container format to OTF won't transform quadratic splines in cubic you know.
No, but exporting the original sfd as OpenType/CFF will! Maybe you should open the sources and tell us which part or "All layers cubic" you don't undrestand. See screenshot!
Btw, support for Romanian locl has been completed by Philipp with a little help from me. So expect a new version upstream anyway.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-07-23 04:54 EST ------- Oh well, I really didn't want to tackle dual OTF/TTF packaging now, especially for a font which is highly likely to be used in OO.o.
Please comment on http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-fonts-list/2008-July/msg00059.html
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From bl.bugs@gmail.com 2008-07-23 07:19 EST ------- I dare you to look at the rendered output of the ttf and otf glyphs at one meter size and pick out the ones with the cubic splines... Really, the quadratic splines which are made from the cubic ones really are virtually the same quality, and if you overlay both you can only really see it at very big sizes, certainly not the sizes you get out of your printer, let alone from your computer screen. Your brain also won't be able to tell which is the better curve (except you're some kind of superhuman with capabilities for visually making accurate derivatives of the curves... ;-) )
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From gaburici@cs.umd.edu 2008-07-23 11:19 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=312487) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=312487&action=view) Mystery screenshot 1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From gaburici@cs.umd.edu 2008-07-23 11:21 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=312488) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=312488&action=view) Mystery screenshot 2
Which one do you find easier to read, this or the previous screenshot?
Btw, I realize this has more to do with hinting rather than cubic vs. quadratic.
Still it is a valid basis for comparison.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From gaburici@cs.umd.edu 2008-07-23 11:30 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=312489) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=312489&action=view) "I'm am clueless" screenshot 1
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From gaburici@cs.umd.edu 2008-07-23 11:34 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=312491) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=312491&action=view) "I'm am clueless" screenshot 2
OTOH, at lager (display) sizes, it's impossible to tell the difference. A good way to check is to overlap the maximized image viewer windows and gradually fade out one of them, e.g. using compiz's Alt+SrollWheel feature.
In conclusion, I was full of hot air on the cubic vs. quadratic issue. Hinting matters a lot more for the user experience...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From gaburici@cs.umd.edu 2008-07-23 11:37 EST ------- Last note on this: all test were with fonts generated at 2048em.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From bl.bugs@gmail.com 2008-07-23 11:40 EST ------- (In reply to comment #15)
Well, you've said it yourself, that's not an issue of quadratic vs cubic splines. Freetype can do automatic hinting as well if you want. And Fontforge can make automatic ttf hinting instructions as well. This is not an issue of ttf being better or worse than otf, but these otf having hinted added by FontForge and the ttf not. If you manually hint the ttfs, the situation will be the other way around.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From gaburici@cs.umd.edu 2008-07-23 11:48 EST ------- Two questions: 1) Isn't the auto-hinter on by default? 2) Isn't the state machine-based ttf hinting unusable in Fedora due to Apple's patent?
All screenshots were from pango-view.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From bl.bugs@gmail.com 2008-07-23 11:54 EST ------- 1) depends on the distro. I think fedora has it on by default, but you can easily change it yourself 2) yeah, but many will turn on the bytecode interpreter anyway with third party packages
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-07-23 14:35 EST ------- If the only difference you see is from one font version being autohinted by fontforge, and the other not, there is a bug in the way the autohinter is configured on your system and the bug should be reassigned to pango and the pango maintainer.
Of course the other solution would be for the libertine packager to script addition of hints to its truetype, but system autohinting is supposed to make that unecessary
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From besfahbo@redhat.com 2008-07-23 15:28 EST ------- Vasile, are you saying that XeTeX can't use TrueType OpenType fonts and only handles CFF OpenType?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From gaburici@cs.umd.edu 2008-07-23 17:06 EST ------- (In reply to comment #23)
Vasile, are you saying that XeTeX can't use TrueType OpenType fonts and only handles CFF OpenType?
No, XeTeX can "handle" both flavors of OpenType. I put handle in quotes because XeTeX internally generates an exteneded dvi (.xdv), which is then ran through a driver to produce pdf; I don't think postscript output is possible. One can tell XeTeX to write the xdv to a file, but I don't know of any viewers for xdv.
On Linux the driver that converts xdv to pdf is xdvipdfmx. (On Macs one can also choose xdv2pdf, which makes use of AAT - Apple's Advanced Typography). So, font support on Linux is entirely dependent on what xdvipdfmx does. Given that the extended dvi stuff was originally developed for East Asian languaes, the English documentation is a bit spotty. Here's what I've been able to determine: - both TrueType and and OpenType/CFF are supported and are embedded in the pdf. - for both formats xdvipdfmx uses the CID encoding for the embedded font. XeTeX understands only UTF-8. The conversion of encodings is handled transparently by xdvipdfmx, and the pdf is searchable except for ligatures. (In contrast, pdftex 1.4 can handle those correctly). - there is confusion whether "bare" type-1 fonts are well supported or not by xdvipdfmx. I've seen things go both ways. The default fonts for XeTeX are Latin Modern, which come as type-1 (and work). Unfortunately, in Fedora you cannot select them manually (say after switching to another font set), because that requires the OTF files, which Fedora doesn't ship. TeXLive upstream includes both type-1 and OTF/CFF versions of Latin Modern. To further complicate this issue, direct type-1 support was apparently added in Feb 2008 for fonts that support the EU1 (TeX) encoding, which apparently is exactly Unicode. See this: http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/xetex/latex/euenc/. Insofar I refrained from filing a bug on Fedora's TeXLive for missing the Latin Modern OTF's... - finally, xdvipdfmx searches both the traditional TeX map paths and makes use of fontconfig to find fonts. I think fontconfig takes precedence.
at least when PDFs are generated. I was living under the misguided impression that CFF was superior for printing.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2008-07-28 22:53 EST ------- ok, so where are we here?
Shall we just stick with the truetype fonts?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
------- Additional Comments From gaburici@cs.umd.edu 2008-07-29 03:25 EST ------- I'd say do nothing for now, that is stick to TTFs.
The long term plan in Fedora is (now) to prefer CFF OTFs, and upstream Philipp also likes it that way. But the 2.8 LL has some problems with 2048em OTFs: the font logo (U+E00A) is broken in Pango, and worse, I'm getting all glyphs broken if I include LL as 2048em OTF in a XeTeX pdf, but the downscaled 1000em OTF works fine with XeTeX. This could be a bug in dvipdfmx because it converts OTFs to type 1 CID before inclusion... The 2048em TTF works better for now.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: No OpenType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2008-07-29 18:13 EST ------- ok. Closing this bug now.
Thanks for all the info, and please do reopen or file a new bug when you think we should look at switching to the OTF's.
fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla