On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 12:59:59AM +0000, Dafydd Harries wrote: > Ok, I'd be happier if I knew of some ways I could perform QA on the > modifications which I make. > > How would I go about checking the metrics?
Use Fontforge to generate .afm files for the new fonts, then compare them with the freely-available Adobe metrics, etc. There's a script that ships with the Ghostscript source (toolbin/afmutil.py) that is helpful in doing the comparision. You can also use toolbin drawafm.ps to verify that the font files actually match their bundled metrics (which has also been a problem in the past). > > I think there are also some hinting problems that crept back into one of > > the releases. > > Some suggestions on how I can test for this? Look for hinting errors? They do show up as rendering problems, but Owen fixed the worst ones for the version that became our 8.11 release. > Ok, I'll pass on anything I find out. Thanks! Re editing procedure, the .pfb files were the original bits released under the GPL. Fontforge can load those, make changes, and re-save. The native files count as 'source' to the extent they have data that doesn't get serialized in writing out the type 1 versions, but for our part we tend not to maintain those and rely on the .pfb/.afm files. How's that for a non-answer? Our general procedure is, as I indicated, to fix them up in Fontforge and write out new versions, but then to regression test those new versions. At least some of the problems we've had in the past have been due to fontforge export bugs, and the rest to incautious editing. HTH, -r -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
