From the internet
Remote
Just van Rossum
@justvanrossum@typo.social
mastodon 4.6.9I used to make fonts. I still do, but I used to, too.
I made the "You wouldn't download a car" font.
I develop font-related software and I teach.
0 Followers
0 Following
50 Posts
Joined November 07, 2022
fontra:
fontgoggles:
Ceramic Voronoi? Old shop lettering in Delft.
@eWalthert@typo.social your shipment is ready
RE: @elgringomexicano@mastodon.social
I initially read that as “well-spaced”.
Replying to
@coopertype@typo.social I would reword as “Learn to be dependent on big tech while boiling the oceans, and pay for it, too”
Using ChatGPT is like driving a Tesla. I said what I said.
Replying to
Replying to
@letterror @Bahman of course we could argue that it's pretty crazy we even need the distinction, but here we are. PostScript and PDF are mostly why we're in this situation.
Replying to
@paulvanderlaan "fonttools subset" has a --no-hinting option that promises to drop all hints.
Replying to
@frankrolf @mathieureguer But other than that I agree that the glyph names should not matter in final fonts. In fact, they don't have to be there at all for TTF. Using a post format 3 table in TTF is a common size optimization strategy for CJK fonts.
Replying to
@paulvanderlaan @jlarmstrongiv Ahh sorry, you're right.
--passthrough-tables doesn't take args, and an empty --drop-tables argument indeed makes it keep all tables. Hard to remember or guess without looking at --help!
Replying to
I quickly made this: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fbUPdHwqRPMlc4FyBjjM4IRi0XjNtl1j5380ArC9lgg/edit?gid=0#gid=0
Names are styled after similar languages/scripts in the Glyphs App list.
Replying to
Replying to
@TiroTypeworks@typo.social @Hilary@typo.social Sure, and let's boil some oceans while we're at it.
Replying to
@Hilary@typo.social Did I ask for AIs opinion? No I did not. Why on earth do you think it is helpful to quote an AI search result? Please never ever do that, especially to people you don’t know.
Font developers, I have a question about glyph names. In your view, what is the meaning of the term "production name"? The term is obviously flawed, hence this poll, but it is used commonly enough that surely there must be a consensus? Please boost.
Replying to
@paulvanderlaan @jlarmstrongiv I suspect you can leave out the --drop-tables and --passthrough-tables arguments, since they require arguments to do something.
Replying to
@timahrens @TiroTypeworks @letterror sorry, what I wrote is obviously wrong. The vertices alone aren’t enough, we have to keep the edges fixed, too.
Replying to
@drj@typo.social @Hilary@typo.social I don't know. Answering with an AI search result is very rude in my book. As if I wouldn't have thought to do that myself if I were interested?
Replying to
@slye Even Adobe's own documentation agrees with me, as @frankrolf accidentally pointed out: https://adobe-type-tools.github.io/afdko/MakeOTFUserGuide.html
Replying to
@mathieureguer On the one hand the OpenType spec demands that glyph names in the 'post' and 'CFF' tables conform to some rules, on the other hand PDF viewers still seem to rely on glyph names for coping text from PDFs that don't embed the original text. I understand many contemporary PDF producers still don't include the original text.
'post' spec: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/opentype/spec/post
Replying to
@khaled I’m so grateful for this collaboration, and I’m glad to see you are as excited as I am!
Replying to
@paulvanderlaan @Bahman Not at all. To me it sounds like you're arguing that designers are using "production names" even when they are *not* part of the production phase. That's just completely backwards to me.
Replying to
@Bahman but also: you're contradicting yourself. You say writing features is part of production, but you go on to say it involves design decisions. So it's not production.
Replying to
@paulvanderlaan @letterror @Bahman yes, and that's the same as what fontmake and Glyphs call "production names".
Replying to
@Bahman I agree they can overlap, but "design" is not a subset of "production", it's more like a venn diagram.
Sketching is part of design, not of production. Exporting a TTF is part of production, not of design.
Deciding what OT features are needed is part of design. Writing them and making sure they work correctly is maybe overlapping design and production.
Kerning is part of design. But making sure your kerning is correctly exported as an OT feature is production. Adding a 'kern' table to support PowerPoint is production.
Making sure the glyph names in the final font conform to technical requirements is production.
Therefore: production names are final names.
Replying to
@drj @Bahman in the end you could call them "frodsfhll" names: you need to learn the concept anyway, so perhaps any label is good. What is so curious to me is that apparently there was a firm idea of what "frodsfhll" names were within Adobe, but over time, the meaning somehow transitioned to the exact opposite, for about 2/3rds of the people (in my bubble), including me.
Replying to
@underware @paulvanderlaan but “production” and “development” are opposing terms in my view. Like @nicksherman mentioned, in web development (but I think software development in general) “production” is the final thing that end users use, and “development” is just that: work in progress.
Replying to
@florian I can make that work. So you say, a PR for this could get accepted? That would be great.
I’ll wait to see if there’s any feedback from my native expert.
Replying to
@paulvanderlaan @letterror @Bahman "final names" is a fine term. But to many (so far 75% in the poll) "production names" is synonymous to that.
Replying to
Replying to
@TiroTypeworks @paulvanderlaan @letterror @Bahman From Paul's other response this seems to be a firm "yes" for them. I will refrain from commenting on that.
Replying to
@Bahman tbh I am absolutely baffled by the amount of people thinking that “production names” is anything else than “final names”.