[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ft-devel] what old/new FontVal says about these fonts
From: |
Hin-Tak Leung |
Subject: |
Re: [ft-devel] what old/new FontVal says about these fonts |
Date: |
Tue, 3 Jan 2017 17:02:32 +0000 (UTC) |
On Tue, 3/1/17, Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:
> Oh no, it's
not identical! There is a lot of invalid glyph outline
data in this font.
Argh, sorry. I have a microsoft font which has identical directories and
checksum listings in the directories (and an extra DSIG at the end) as 26.ttc .
Indeed, the rest of 26.ttc has been heavily modified, without updating the
directories...
- Re: [ft-devel] what old/new FontVal says about these fonts, (continued)
- Re: [ft-devel] what old/new FontVal says about these fonts, Jan Bruns, 2017/01/01
- Re: [ft-devel] what old/new FontVal says about these fonts, Werner LEMBERG, 2017/01/02
- Re: [ft-devel] what old/new FontVal says about these fonts, Jan Bruns, 2017/01/02
- Re: [ft-devel] what old/new FontVal says about these fonts, Werner LEMBERG, 2017/01/02
- Re: [ft-devel] what old/new FontVal says about these fonts, Jan Bruns, 2017/01/02
- Re: [ft-devel] what old/new FontVal says about these fonts, Werner LEMBERG, 2017/01/03
- Re: [ft-devel] what old/new FontVal says about these fonts, Jan Bruns, 2017/01/04
- Re: [ft-devel] what old/new FontVal says about these fonts, Werner LEMBERG, 2017/01/04
Re: [ft-devel] what old/new FontVal says about these fonts, Hin-Tak Leung, 2017/01/02
Re: [ft-devel] what old/new FontVal says about these fonts,
Hin-Tak Leung <=