Re: [ft-devel] what old/new FontVal says about these fonts

[Hin-Tak Leung]

Hi Werner,

I think you only need to have another look at two files, 14.ttf and 24.ttc - 
details below.

I am down to 1 file difference - 14.ttf . The hmtx table is missing/mis-spelt 
alright. That does not seem to stop the FontVal 1.0 backend loading the glyf 
and check rasterization/hinting. I tried by-passing that check in freetype - it 
seems that it is possible to cope from incremental loading? but I did not get 
ftdump to run. fails with 0002 - unknown file format?

The full validation have the usual candidates - missing htmx, plenty of table 
checksum errors, postscript table has a lot of illegal characters, glyf table a 
lot of intersecting contours, but strangely, no errors/warnings from 
hinting/rasterization - that part is a pass!

FYI, out of the 29, (excluding the *.fon - not interested in them), FT 2.7 
could not load any fully; 4 was fixed up to 3 weeks ago beyond 2.7; the 3 
changes fixes 8,2,1 = 11 files further in total. So current git does not load 
14 of them fully. Most of the 14 are CFF's which are done differently in 
FontVal 1.0 so that's close enough, other than 14.ttf. (for my purpose I need 
to know which fix fixes which font to insert some more code eventually....)

Also, I wrote 'fully' - type face 0 in 24.ttc seems to be mostly intact . That 
may be why some other viewer can use it. Any chance of making that work a 
little better?

Hin-Tak

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 28/12/16, Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:

 Thanks for testing. 
 Please check with a current git version of
 FreeType and report the differences to
 FontValidator 1.0, together
 with its warning
 and error messages – maybe I can make FreeType load
 even more fonts.
 
 
     Werner