On 09/04/2014 03:29 AM, Monte Hurd wrote:
The font forge importation workflow was sticky enough (importing svgs and mapping them, etc) that small visual tweaks (baseline offsets and such) ended up being made in the font forge project itself as well, thus diverging from the source svgs.
This is why automation and having a clear understanding of what the source code is are both so important.
I think this workflow stickiness was what led the designer to see the font forge project as canonical.
Actually, it was somewhat ambiguous what the source code is. Read https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/137888/ if you want to know what I mean.
One automates creating a font from a folder of svgs. Svgs are canonical as they should be, but hey, you want a font? You got it.
Great. This will be useful for the app, and if we ever decide to revisit the decision about icons on web (I completely agree SVG is better as source code, but we could still use generated fonts on desktop if we decided that approach was suitable).
Matt Flaschen _______________________________________________ Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
