On 17/6/14 14:31, Wilson Page wrote:
grunt-webfont <https://github.com/sapegin/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). :(
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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:
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.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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/
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
