Fontfreedom | 1 Aug 15:19 2010
Picon

collaborative font idea for openfontlibrary list members:

What about a font which incorporates every weird glyph in any expired public domain book (pre-1923).
 
Starting with the more scholarly tomes....The old standards.
 
For Example: Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914 Edition. Volume 3.
 
 
 
FontFreedom
Nathan Willis | 3 Aug 01:33 2010

Re: collaborative font idea for openfontlibrary list members:

On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 8:19 AM, <Fontfreedom-YDxpq3io04c@public.gmane.org> wrote:
What about a font which incorporates every weird glyph in any expired public domain book (pre-1923).
 
Starting with the more scholarly tomes....The old standards.
 
For Example: Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914 Edition. Volume 3.
 
 

What sort of weird glyphs do you mean?  I'm not sure I understand.

Thanks,
Nate
--
nathan.p.willis
nwillis-eiP9NBaGPlk1WUs8F/Ki+Q@public.gmane.org
aim/ym/gtalk:n8willis
identi.ca/n8
Fontfreedom | 3 Aug 22:05 2010
Picon

Re: What sort of weird glyphs do you mean?

What sort of weird glyphs do you mean?  I'm not sure I understand.

Thanks,
Nate
--
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 
Mainly those in the text of books, from the 17th and 18th centuries.
 
I've noticed in this book that the c's and t's are one glyph(ct). That kind of thing. (or have people already covered that stuff somewhere?)
 
 
FF
Peter Baker | 5 Aug 18:43 2010
Picon

Re: What sort of weird glyphs do you mean?

The ct ligature is present as a discretionary ligature in a number of
fonts, including some free ones. In general the oddball glyphs are
present in fonts made for specialized purposes. In a general-purpose
font they'd just be bloat.

On Tuesday, August 3, 2010,  <Fontfreedom@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> What sort of weird glyphs do you mean?  I'm not sure I
> understand.
>
> Thanks,
> Nate
> --
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> Mainly those in the text of books, from the 17th and 18th centuries.
>
> I've noticed in this book that the c's and t's are one glyph(ct). That kind
> of thing. (or have people already covered that stuff somewhere?)
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=R9nPAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
> FF

Chris Lilley | 5 Aug 18:45 2010
Picon

Re: What sort of weird glyphs do you mean?

On Tuesday, August 3, 2010, 10:05:24 PM, Fontfreedom wrote:

Fac>  I've noticed in this book that the c's and t's are one glyph(ct). That kind of thing. 
Its called a ligature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographic_ligature

Fac> (or have people already covered that stuff somewhere?)
Yes
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/features_ko.htm#liga

and example
Rendering Historical Texts With OpenType Features
http://people.mozilla.org/~jdaggett/webfonts/historicaltext.html

--

-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@...
 Technical Director, Interaction Domain
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG

Dave Crossland | 8 Aug 05:49 2010

MediaWiki Upload UI

Hi,

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/prototype-upload-wizard/ seems relevant
to OFLB :)

Cheers
Dave

Fontfreedom | 16 Aug 00:53 2010
Picon

Multilicense your license fonts

How about letting people who upload fonts to  openfontlibrary select more 
than one license for their font?
IE: Let them  pick GNU GPL & The Boost C++ Libraries License & FREEBSD 
License &  The MIT License
& SIL OFL & The Apache 2.0 License & Public  Domain all at once for a font? 

Dave Crossland | 16 Aug 04:26 2010

Re: Multilicense your license fonts

On 15 August 2010 23:53,  <Fontfreedom@...> wrote:
> How about letting people who upload fonts to  openfontlibrary select more
> than one license for their font?
> IE: Let them  pick GNU GPL & The Boost C++ Libraries License & FREEBSD
> License &  The MIT License
> & SIL OFL & The Apache 2.0 License & Public  Domain all at once for a font?

We do.

Fontfreedom | 21 Aug 09:18 2010
Picon

Languages / Fonts

Does anyone know of for example a list of Languages which have say: over 1 Million current speakers worldwide and no font avalibility?
Dave Crossland | 23 Aug 17:25 2010

Open Font License FAQ updated!

Hi!

Version 1.1-update2 of the OFL-FAQ is now finalised and published on
http://scripts.sil.org/OFL  (as a separate text file) and on
http://scripts.sil.org/OFL-FAQ_web  as a webpage.

There is now a WOFF entry:

- - - 8< - - -

Question: 2.2 Can I make and use WOFF (Web Open Font Format) versions
of OFL fonts?

Answer: Yes, but you need to be careful. A change in font format
normally is considered modification, and Reserved Font Names (RFNs)
cannot be used. Because of the design of the WOFF format, however, it
is possible to create a WOFF version that is not considered
modification, and so would not require a name change. You are allowed
to create, use and distribute a WOFF version of an OFL font without
changing the font name, but only if:

the original font data remains unchanged except for WOFF compression, and
WOFF-specific metadata is either omitted altogether or present and
includes, unaltered, the contents of all equivalent metadata in the
original font.
If the original font data or metadata is changed, or the WOFF-specific
metadata is incomplete, the font must be considered a Modified
Version, the OFL restrictions would apply and the name of the font
must be changed: any RFNs cannot be used and copyright notices and
licensing information must be included and cannot be deleted or
modified. You must come up with a unique name - we recommend one
corresponding to your domain or your particular web application. Be
aware that only the original author(s) can use RFNs. This is to
prevent collisions between a derivative tuned to your audience and the
original upstream version and so to reduce confusion.

Please note that most WOFF conversion tools and online services do not
meet the two requirements listed above, and so their output must be
considered a Modified Version. So be very careful and check to be sure
that the tool or service you're using is compressing unchanged data
and completely and accurately reflecting the original font metadata.

Question: 2.3 What about other webfont formats such as EOT/EOTLite/CWT/etc.?

Answer: In most cases these formats alter the original font data more
than WOFF, and do not completely support appropriate metadata, so
their use must be considered modification and RFNs may not be used.

- - - 8< - - -

Thanks to Nicolas Spalinger for all his great work on the SIL OFL :-)

Cheers
Dave


Gmane