[OpenFontLibrary] workflow hints
khaledhosny at eglug.org
Tue Jun 15 07:56:44 PDT 2010
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 09:32:48AM +0200, Ben Laenen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:53 AM, Peter Baker <b.tarde at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Couple of quick points. First, the FontForge format has always been
> > plain text. It works well with CVS, SVN, etc.
> Only if you cut out the unneeded bits like we do with DejaVu. If we
> would forget to run that script and commit a change to SVN we'd get
> something like a 2 MB patch.
Not my experience, I do post-edit the file before committing, but it is
usually few cosmetics, nothing big, the last time I used the dejavu
scripts they broke my files, my be I did something wrong, but this was a
while ago and I didn't check again since then.
> Anyway, FontForge's normalized SFD format is by far the best we've got
> for collaborative font development.
> > It isn't really
> > human-editable, but it contain everything--outlines, hints or
> > instructions, OT features, kerning, etc. Second, UFO by contrast is
> > woefully incomplete: it knows nothing about TrueType instructions, for
> > example, or OpenType features. The slowness of its development is
> > baffling to me, considering the importance of the things that are
> > still missing. I flirted with it for a while but had to give it up.
> I should have read further down this thread before complaining on UFO myself :-)
Indeed, UFO is anything but a good exchange format, FF's font dir might
be much more reliable.
> > Strangely, the binary font formats remain very good for exchange. Both
> > the major editors read them!
> You'd still lose a lot of metadata though, like OpenType rule names
> for which there's no room in the ttf file. And it's absolutely not
> suited for collaboration.
Compared to UFO, it is much better, especially if you can't use
FF for some reason. Adobe feature files can be considered too.
Arabic localiser and member of Arabeyes.org team
Free font developer
More information about the OpenFontLibrary