Following the grunt-webfont readme everything seemed to 'just work' for me (OSX).
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Kew" <j...@mozilla.com> To: "Wilson Page" <wilsonp...@mozilla.com> Cc: "Anne van Kesteren" <ann...@annevk.nl>, "Patryk Adamczyk" <padamc...@mozilla.com>, "John Daggett" <jdagg...@mozilla.com>, "b2g-internal" <b2g-inter...@mozilla.org>, "L. David Baron" <dba...@mozilla.com>, "Jaime Chen" <jac...@mozilla.com>, "Jonathan Watt" <jw...@mozilla.com>, "Jet Villegas" <j...@mozilla.com>, "Cameron McCormack" <hey...@gmail.com>, "Vivien" <vnico...@mozilla.com>, "sicking" <sick...@mozilla.com>, "Robert O'Callahan" <rocalla...@mozilla.com>, "mozilla.dev.platform group" <dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:23:26 PM Subject: Re: Icon fonts in FxOS On 17/6/14 14:31, Wilson Page wrote: grunt-webfont is where the magic lives :) Hmm. Magic indeed. Omitting the unwanted PUA codepoints would probably be a pretty minor tweak to the fontforge script there. But a brief attempt to get this up and running didn't go well for me, on either OS X (the fontforge python script fails, and homebrew can't seem to give me a new FF installation) or on Linux (npm fails to install grunt, grunt-webfont, etc). :( <blockquote> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Kew" <j...@mozilla.com> To: "Wilson Page" <wilsonp...@mozilla.com> , "Anne van Kesteren" <ann...@annevk.nl> Cc: "Patryk Adamczyk" <padamc...@mozilla.com> , "John Daggett" <jdagg...@mozilla.com> , "b2g-internal" <b2g-inter...@mozilla.org> , "L. David Baron" <dba...@mozilla.com> , "Jaime Chen" <jac...@mozilla.com> , "Jonathan Watt" <jw...@mozilla.com> , "Jet Villegas" <j...@mozilla.com> , "Cameron McCormack" <hey...@gmail.com> , "Vivien" <vnico...@mozilla.com> , "sicking" <sick...@mozilla.com> , "Robert O'Callahan" <rocalla...@mozilla.com> , "mozilla.dev.platform group" <dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:22:03 PM Subject: Re: Icon fonts in FxOS On 17/6/14 13:17, Wilson Page wrote: <blockquote> If we are using ligatures in our apps, this isn't a problem. If someone wants to remove PUA glyphs, great! But this has no reason to block. </blockquote> Right, if we're embedding the font in our apps rather than installing it in the OS, then the PUA codepoints it includes aren't likely to be exposed to the world in general. Still, it'd be cleaner to eliminate them - especially if we expect this may be adopted by other authors as well. Where is the script that generates this font maintained? JK <blockquote> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne van Kesteren" <ann...@annevk.nl> To: "Wilson Page" <wilsonp...@mozilla.com> Cc: "Jonathan Kew" <j...@mozilla.com> , "Patryk Adamczyk" <padamc...@mozilla.com> , "John Daggett" <jdagg...@mozilla.com> , "b2g-internal" <b2g-inter...@mozilla.org> , "L. David Baron" <dba...@mozilla.com> , "Jaime Chen" <jac...@mozilla.com> , "Jonathan Watt" <jw...@mozilla.com> , "Jet Villegas" <j...@mozilla.com> , "Cameron McCormack" <hey...@gmail.com> , "Vivien" <vnico...@mozilla.com> , "sicking" <sick...@mozilla.com> , "Robert O'Callahan" <rocalla...@mozilla.com> , "mozilla.dev.platform group" <dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:26:19 PM Subject: Re: Icon fonts in FxOS On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Wilson Page <wilsonp...@mozilla.com> wrote: > Maybe I'm late to the party, but I don't know what the PUA issue is? Code points carry semantics. If you assign meaning to unassigned code points through fonts, you have created a portability problem. That is, the font is required to make sense out of the code points. This was a problem with Emoji until it was standardized by Unicode. It would be good to avoid doing that again. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/ </blockquote> </blockquote> _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
