: Is this what can be expected given the
path data or is there something else I should be looking at tweaking?
Thanks,
Skef Iterum (Adobe, Inc.)
I'm afraid I don't have an exact overlap-less example handy because the
equivalent static font also hints a bit differently, hiding the issue.
But I'm referring to the fact that the upper serifs cover the upper
parts of the stems but the pixels above the stems are darker, so the
overlapping
The better angels of my nature tell me to just leave this as it is, as
this is archived and may be referenced in the future ...
What you're suggesting, if I understand correctly, is that the existing
flags available in the glyf implementation, and a new flag made
available in the CFF2
CFF2 is released, has been for years. As far as I know there's no solid
convention for ignoring unrecognized operators in a CharString, so this
would be CFF2 minor 1 at best. Which would be years out in terms of
support.
Practically speaking I don't think this could wind up being a "this
I'm afraid the horse has left the barn as far as that goes.
Skef
On 12/19/23 04:23, Alexei Podtelezhnikov wrote:
I would suggest that CFF2 invent a special charstring to mark overlaps
with FT_OUTLINE_OVERLAP only when necessary. Let us know to implement
it in FreeType.
I'm not necessarily looking for a "fix", I just want to verify that the
CFF2 side is doing what it can and should be.
I did run into the thread Cosimo links to in my research, but of course
CFF doesn't have either of the glyf flags or any equivalent.
It's easy enough to add
