[Openfontlibrary] Openfontlibrary Digest, Vol 34, Issue 13

Sat Oct 25 17:00:01 PDT 2008

After dong a little investigating, ccHost does allow you to see the  
contents of a zip file. I installed ccHost and then uploaded a zip  
file. The contents were there.

Am I on the same page as you guys?

I would not allow me to use all the other font files though. There  
should be an option to allow all files! Or perhaps exclude certain  
file types. like PHP files or other files that could be excruciated on  
the server.

Brendan

On Oct 25, 2008, at 12:54 PM, openfontlibrary-request at lists.freedesktop.org 
  wrote:

> Send Openfontlibrary mailing list submissions to
> 	openfontlibrary at lists.freedesktop.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	openfontlibrary-request at lists.freedesktop.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	openfontlibrary-owner at lists.freedesktop.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Openfontlibrary digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Font formats accepted by OFLB (Ed Trager)
>   2. Re: Font formats accepted by OFLB (Karl Berry)
>   3. Re: Font formats accepted by OFLB (Mark Leisher)
>   4. Re: Font formats accepted by OFLB (George Williams)
>   5. Re: Font formats accepted by OFLB (Christopher Fynn)
>   6. Re: Font formats accepted by OFLB (Ben Weiner)
>   7. Re: Font formats accepted by OFLB (Ben Laenen)
>   8. Re: Font formats accepted by OFLB (Ben Weiner)
>   9. Re: Font formats accepted by OFLB (Ben Weiner)
>  10. Re: Font formats accepted by OFLB (Nicolas Mailhot)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:48:38 -0400
> From: "Ed Trager" <ed.trager at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB
> To: "Ben Weiner" <ben at readingtype.org.uk>
> Cc: Open Font Library list <openfontlibrary at lists.freedesktop.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<416e2cf10810241348v752b5f9n5f5e570669713aca at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hi, Ben,
>
> Don't forget .ttc true type collections.  These will become more
> popular in the future, I am sure.
>
> I second Mark Leisher's suggestion to accept pcf and bdf.
>
> Some people are going to provide one font in multiple font containers:
> i.e., maybe ttf and pcf, or ttf and Postscript.
>
> But I agree with you that the older Postscript containers are not
> needed since OTF can contain Postscript outlines, right?
>
> Ben Laenen's question is relevant.  Perhaps the right tack is for OFLB
> to simply "encourage" inclusion of "at least" a ttf container.
>
> Note however there are legitimate use cases where .bdf or .pcf might
> be the first choice container -- for example, a monospaced bitmap
> terminal font for Linux, especially for a non-Latin script where there
> might not be other choices available.  Such a bitmap-only font should
> also be packaged in a TTF container, but the main file that will
> actually get used by people interested in that font is the bdf or pcf
> file.
>
>
> Best - Ed
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Ben Weiner  
> <ben at readingtype.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> My proposal for OFLB font uploads in the next version of the site  
>> is to
>> accept
>>
>> .otf
>> .ttf
>>
>> which are far and away going to be the most widely appreciated, then
>>
>> .pfa
>> .pfm
>> .pfb
>> .afm
>> .bdf
>>
>> which are Adobe-ish formats that are all in the current site: are  
>> they
>> all needed?
>>
>> Then the X-Windows format, if it is still in use:
>> .pcf
>>
>> Then humna-readable source:
>> .sfd
>>
>> What else? Metafont files (?.mf)?
>>
>> A short list is better, I think. Suggestions?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ben
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openfontlibrary mailing list
>> Openfontlibrary at lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:43:06 -0500
> From: karl at freefriends.org (Karl Berry)
> Subject: Re: [Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB
> To: ed.trager at gmail.com
> Cc: openfontlibrary at lists.freedesktop.org
> Message-ID: <200810242143.m9OLh6k28149 at f7.net>
>
>    But I agree with you that the older Postscript containers are not
>    needed since OTF can contain Postscript outlines, right?
>
> Technically, sure, but pfb files are still very useful and widely used
> -- in the TeX world, at least.  Is anything substantial gained by
> disallowing them?  Actually, I don't see what's gained by disallowing
> anything.  And, as mentioned, people are really uploading zips anyway,
> right?
>
> Anyway, I haven't seen pfa files used in umpteen years, so if you'd  
> like
> to have a token format to drop, I suggest that one.
>
> karl
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:12:12 -0600
> From: Mark Leisher <mleisher at math.nmsu.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB
> To: Open Font Library list <openfontlibrary at lists.freedesktop.org>
> Message-ID: <4902483C.5010801 at math.nmsu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Ed Trager wrote:
>> Note however there are legitimate use cases where .bdf or .pcf might
>> be the first choice container -- for example, a monospaced bitmap
>> terminal font for Linux, especially for a non-Latin script where  
>> there
>> might not be other choices available.  Such a bitmap-only font should
>> also be packaged in a TTF container, but the main file that will
>> actually get used by people interested in that font is the bdf or pcf
>> file.
>
> Actually, native Linux console bitmap fonts are PSF2 (.psf) fonts.  
> There
> are tools to convert BDF to PSF.
>
> Perhaps the category should be more general. Accept bitmap fonts.  
> Those
> that can be packaged in a TTF container should have the container and
> the original in the zip file.
>
> Side note: there is persistent user confusion over TTF fonts that only
> display properly in one size. They seldom understand they are using a
> bitmap font that only comes in one size.
> -- 
> Mark Leisher
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: 24 Oct 2008 20:41:21 -0700
> From: George Williams <gww at silcom.com>
> Subject: Re: [Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB
> To: Ed Trager <ed.trager at gmail.com>
> Cc: Open Font Library list <openfontlibrary at lists.freedesktop.org>
> Message-ID: <1224906080.1522.21.camel at lynch>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 13:48, Ed Trager wrote:
>> Such a bitmap-only font should
>> also be packaged in a TTF container,
> Um, there is no standard sfnt format for a bitmap only font.
>  Apple supports one format
>  X11 has its own format (and supports Apple's)
>  MS has NO bitmap only format.
>    (and does not support either Apple's or X11's)
>
> An sfnt container for a bdf file is a bad idea unless you are very
> specific about what system you intend it to be used on.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 11:01:08 +0600
> From: Christopher Fynn <cfynn at gmx.net>
> Subject: Re: [Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB
> To: Open Font Library list <openfontlibrary at lists.freedesktop.org>
> Message-ID: <4902A814.9060900 at gmx.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>
>
> Ben Weiner wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> which are far and away going to be the most widely appreciated, then
>>
>> .pfa
>> .pfm
>> .pfb
>> .afm
> ...
>
>
> Hmm, shouldn't that be something like: either .pfb or .pfa  along with
> either .pfm  or .afm + .inf as a minimum for non OT postscript fonts?
>
> The font glyph outlines are either in a pfb or a pfa file while the
> metrics, kerning and other info for the font are in the corresponding
> pfm file or afm + inf files. So you need at least two or three files.
>
> .pfa = postscript font ascii  (Type)
> .pfb = postscript font binary (Type 1)
>
> .pfm = printer font metrics
> .afm = adobe font metrics
> .inf = font information file
>
> - Chris
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:43:15 +0100
> From: Ben Weiner <ben at readingtype.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB
> To: Open Font Library list <openfontlibrary at lists.freedesktop.org>
> Message-ID: <49031463.6050303 at readingtype.org.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi,
>
> Ben Laenen wrote:
>> How is this enforced?
> ccHost (the site platform) will accept or reject files based on their
> extension and, depending on the filetype, will attempt to verify the
> ones it does allow.
>
>> I thought people were uploading zip files
>> containing the fonts and all extra files like README and LICENSE.
>>
> Looks as though in the next OFLB site version we'll have to ask people
> to upload individual files. We'd certainly need to unpack archives  
> if we
> allowed them, and ccHost currently cannot see inside tarballs, facts
> that together mean we're best avoiding them.
>
> That's in direct opposition to Nicolas' suggestion, I'm afraid. And I
> speak as an enthusiast of archive-uploading.
>
> The FONTLOG will be stored as metadata associated with the typeface.
> Also due to the way cccHost stores uploads. README is anything the  
> user
> puts in the description, for now. License is metadata (and can/ 
> should of
> course be stuck into TTF fonts and their friends).
>
> Cheers,
> Ben
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:12:52 +0200
> From: Ben Laenen <benlaenen at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB
> To: openfontlibrary at lists.freedesktop.org
> Message-ID: <200810251512.52481.benlaenen at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Saturday 25 October 2008, Ben Weiner wrote:
>> Looks as though in the next OFLB site version we'll have to ask
>> people to upload individual files. We'd certainly need to unpack
>> archives if we allowed them, and ccHost currently cannot see inside
>> tarballs, facts that together mean we're best avoiding them.
>
> I completely disagree with that, and it won't work anyway. You assume
> that fonts are always one file, or everything could be pushed into one
> file. If you look at DejaVu we have a *lot* more, like build files
> (Makefile, some scripts to process the fonts when building etc), more
> scripts that help in development, and other metadata files like
> changelogs, readme, status files etc.
>
> Other projects have for example Xgridfit files for their hinting, or
> other files that are used for building the fonts from source.
>
> If ccHost cannot handle zipped files, then too bad. Not allowing zip
> files to be uploaded would be a major defect of the site.
>
> Greetings
> Ben
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:33:19 +0100
> From: Ben Weiner <ben at readingtype.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB
> To: Open Font Library list <openfontlibrary at lists.freedesktop.org>
> Message-ID: <49032E2F.90000 at readingtype.org.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi,
>
> Ben Laenen wrote:
>> On Saturday 25 October 2008, Ben Weiner wrote:
>>
>>> Looks as though in the next OFLB site version we'll have to ask
>>> people to upload individual files. We'd certainly need to unpack
>>> archives if we allowed them, and ccHost currently cannot see inside
>>> tarballs, facts that together mean we're best avoiding them.
>>>
>>
>> I completely disagree with that, and it won't work anyway. You assume
>> that fonts are always one file, or everything could be pushed into  
>> one
>> file.
> Never ;-)
>
> Although that sounds a bit like an archive to me :-)
>> If you look at DejaVu we have a *lot* more, like build files
>> (Makefile, some scripts to process the fonts when building etc), more
>> scripts that help in development, and other metadata files like
>> changelogs, readme, status files etc.
>>
>> Other projects have for example Xgridfit files for their hinting, or
>> other files that are used for building the fonts from source.
>>
> Aha! Source. Nobody's come back to me on that. I know humans can read
> .sfd files. What about the 'source' files used by other font-authoring
> applications? Do we accept these even thought they're not amenable to
> reuse except by people who also own that software?
>
> If we do decide to accept them, can someone provide a 'Hello
> Typographical World' example file for each? I  can do Macromedia
> Fontographer from my deep-stored Mac OS 8 box, but none of the others.
>> If ccHost cannot handle zipped files, then too bad.
> It can certainly handle them. What it doesn't do is make them usefully
> available in their unscrambled form. It's also not very deft with
> tarballs - although it'll accept them by default, you cannot find out
> what's inside them (without a plugin of some sort from the future,  
> AFAIK).
>
> Incidentally, there is no reason why what I'm informally calling the
> 'typeface record' (the basic unit of ccHosting as applied to fonts, eg
> http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/OSP/322) should not possess a  
> mix
> of compiled fonts and zipped resources such as the source files and
> readmes. Anyone think that's a good idea?
>
> Cheers,
> Ben
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:37:59 +0100
> From: Ben Weiner <ben at readingtype.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB
> To: Open Font Library list <openfontlibrary at lists.freedesktop.org>
> Message-ID: <49032F47.7040905 at readingtype.org.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi,
>
> I wrote:
>> Incidentally, there is no reason why what I'm informally calling the
>> 'typeface record' (the basic unit of ccHosting as applied to fonts,  
>> eg
>> http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/OSP/322)
> Looking at this rather fab typeface, it's clear what a huge chore it
> would be to upload the whole family file by file.
>
> When that plugin from the future is written I will be the first to  
> plug
> it in. Otherwise we'll need a flickr Uploadr style helper app ;-)
>
> Ben
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:18:52 +0200
> From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>
> Subject: Re: [Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB
> To: Ben Weiner <ben at readingtype.org.uk>
> Cc: Open Font Library list <openfontlibrary at lists.freedesktop.org>
> Message-ID: <1224951532.31574.9.camel at arekh.okg>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Le samedi 25 octobre 2008 ? 15:37 +0100, Ben Weiner a ?crit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wrote:
>>> Incidentally, there is no reason why what I'm informally calling the
>>> 'typeface record' (the basic unit of ccHosting as applied to  
>>> fonts, eg
>>> http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/OSP/322)
>> Looking at this rather fab typeface, it's clear what a huge chore it
>> would be to upload the whole family file by file.
>
> Download would be no easier.
>
> Again, one of the big reasons evey distro under the sun bundles DejaVu
> nowadays, is that it used early the well known and proven bin  
> tarball +
> source tarball (with build scripts, documentation, detached font
> license, versioning, etc) distribution form instead of the usual  
> "fonts
> are special" mess that has everyone but font creators scratching their
> heads wondering what they're supposed to make of it.
>
> It's fairly interesting to note, BTW, that despite all the media  
> tapage
> Liberation is still struggling to get the same adoption rate as DejaVu
> http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-family/sampler-UnixResults.shtml
>
> The only big difference between Liberation and early DejaVu (apart  
> from
> the Red Hat marketing run) was the craptastic way Liberation was
> initially published on the web (and it was still better than getting
> files one at a time).
>
> Regards,
>
> -- 
> Nicolas Mailhot
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 197 bytes
> Desc: Ceci est une partie de message
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
> Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/openfontlibrary/attachments/20081025/80e752cd/attachment.pgp
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openfontlibrary mailing list
> Openfontlibrary at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openfontlibrary
>
>
> End of Openfontlibrary Digest, Vol 34, Issue 13
> ***********************************************