On 06/04/2017 15:53, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
2017-04-06 15:31 GMT+02:00 Ulrike Fischer <ne...@nililand.de>:
Am Thu, 6 Apr 2017 07:10:06 -0600 schrieb Bobby de Vos:
On 2017-04-06 02:39, Ulrike Fischer wrote:
On the whole I would agree with the debian answer: applications like
xetex/xdvipdfmx shouldn't try to use fonts it can't handle.
Thank you for your response. I will file a bug with Debian at some point.
Why Debian? I meant it is more a xetex problem so I would add a bug
report there.
This is certainly not a Debian bug, the font is installed as it should be.
The problem is that it is not supported by XeTeX/xdvipdfmx and it is a question
what XeTeX should do if fontconfig offers an unsupported font
Well... while I agree that we should do something in XeTeX to handle
this, I also think it is a poor decision on Debian's side to mix .woff
files, which are explicitly intended for web deployment, alongside .otf
files that are expected to be available in the local GUI desktop
environment. These are two distinct categories of resource, and it would
be more appropriate to keep them separate.
More generally, I think it's a bad idea for a distro or package or
whatever to install multiple copies of the "same" font (e.g. both
TrueType and Type1 formats) with the same name where fontconfig will
find them both.
JK
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
