1 Aug 2010 15:19
3 Aug 2010 01:33
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
3 Aug 2010 22:05
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
--
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
5 Aug 2010 18:43
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
5 Aug 2010 18:45
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
8 Aug 2010 05:49
MediaWiki Upload UI
Hi, http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/prototype-upload-wizard/ seems relevant to OFLB :) Cheers Dave
16 Aug 2010 00:53
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?
16 Aug 2010 04:26
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.
21 Aug 2010 09:18
23 Aug 2010 17:25
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 OFLCheers Dave
Cheers
Dave
RSS Feed