[Openfontlibrary] Font formats accepted by OFLB

[Ed Trager]

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