Re: [XeTeX] font licenses and embedding
As far as I know there are Unicode version of the font using same glyph. Just the CDAC's website. On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Arthur Reutenauer < arthur.reutena...@normalesup.org> wrote: > > Guys! I have access to that font(DV-TTSurekh-Normal). > > It's not the one Mike used, he mentioned SD-TTSurekh. In fact, a > Google search for DV-TTSurekh gives as first hit a link to download it, > without any indication as to the legality of this. > > But what you say probably applies to SD-TTSurekh as well: > > > As far as I know it > is > > said that font is made in 1996-97. And it in no way a Unicode OpenType > Font. > > It is an ASCII hack font for Devanagari. The Devanagari glyph are draw in > > latin names. So, for example when you type a you will get क as glyph of > a. > > According to http://fr.fontstock.net/11471/sd-ttsurekh-normal.html > where you can see samples, the glyph for क is encoded at E, not a. But > it's not at all Unicode-compliant anyway. > > > So just telling fontspec the font name will not work of that font as I > know. > > Indeed no. > >Arthur > > > -- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- Ujjwol Lamichhane http://ujjwol.com.np/ -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] font licenses and embedding
Yes! People here still use ASCII hack font till Adobe Apps will natively support Devanagari Unicode. Every place where digital Devanagari is to be used, ASCII hack font are used. Unicode font are only for some tech- enthusiasts and Indologist. d On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Mike Maxwell wrote: > On 9/25/2010 12:00 PM, Ujjwol Lamichhane wrote: > >> Guys! I have access to that font(DV-TTSurekh-Normal). As far as I know >> it is said that font is made in 1996-97. And it in no way a Unicode >> OpenType Font. It is an ASCII hack font for Devanagari. The Devanagari >> glyph are draw in latin names. So, for example when you type a you will >> get क as glyph of a. So just telling fontspec the font name will not >> work of that font as I know. >> > > Thanks--I guess that's not surprising. Well into the 2000s, most Hindi web > pages used proprietary 8-bit encodings (not even ISCII, which was at least > documented). > > -- >Mike Maxwell >maxw...@umiacs.umd.edu >"A library is the best possible imitation, by human beings, >of a divine mind, where the whole universe is viewed and >understood at the same time... we have invented libraries >because we know that we do not have divine powers, but we >try to do our best to imitate them." --Umberto Eco > > > -- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- Ujjwol Lamichhane http://ujjwol.com.np/ -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] font licenses and embedding
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Arthur Reutenauer < arthur.reutena...@normalesup.org> wrote: > > Guys! I have access to that font(DV-TTSurekh-Normal). > > It's not the one Mike used, he mentioned SD-TTSurekh. In fact, a > Google search for DV-TTSurekh gives as first hit a link to download it, > without any indication as to the legality of this. > > But what you say probably applies to SD-TTSurekh as well: > > > As far as I know it > is > > said that font is made in 1996-97. And it in no way a Unicode OpenType > Font. > > It is an ASCII hack font for Devanagari. The Devanagari glyph are draw in > > latin names. So, for example when you type a you will get क as glyph of > a. > > According to http://fr.fontstock.net/11471/sd-ttsurekh-normal.html > where you can see samples, the glyph for क is encoded at E, not a. But > it's not at all Unicode-compliant anyway. > > I was just giving example just in case how hack fonts work. Not showing real encoding. ;) > > So just telling fontspec the font name will not work of that font as I > know. > > Indeed no. > >Arthur > > > -- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- Ujjwol Lamichhane http://ujjwol.com.np/ -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] font licenses and embedding
On 9/25/2010 12:00 PM, Ujjwol Lamichhane wrote: Guys! I have access to that font(DV-TTSurekh-Normal). As far as I know it is said that font is made in 1996-97. And it in no way a Unicode OpenType Font. It is an ASCII hack font for Devanagari. The Devanagari glyph are draw in latin names. So, for example when you type a you will get क as glyph of a. So just telling fontspec the font name will not work of that font as I know. Thanks--I guess that's not surprising. Well into the 2000s, most Hindi web pages used proprietary 8-bit encodings (not even ISCII, which was at least documented). -- Mike Maxwell maxw...@umiacs.umd.edu "A library is the best possible imitation, by human beings, of a divine mind, where the whole universe is viewed and understood at the same time... we have invented libraries because we know that we do not have divine powers, but we try to do our best to imitate them." --Umberto Eco -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] font licenses and embedding
> Guys! I have access to that font(DV-TTSurekh-Normal). It's not the one Mike used, he mentioned SD-TTSurekh. In fact, a Google search for DV-TTSurekh gives as first hit a link to download it, without any indication as to the legality of this. But what you say probably applies to SD-TTSurekh as well: > As far as I know it is > said that font is made in 1996-97. And it in no way a Unicode OpenType Font. > It is an ASCII hack font for Devanagari. The Devanagari glyph are draw in > latin names. So, for example when you type a you will get क as glyph of a. According to http://fr.fontstock.net/11471/sd-ttsurekh-normal.html where you can see samples, the glyph for क is encoded at E, not a. But it's not at all Unicode-compliant anyway. > So just telling fontspec the font name will not work of that font as I know. Indeed no. Arthur -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] font licenses and embedding
Guys! I have access to that font(DV-TTSurekh-Normal). As far as I know it is said that font is made in 1996-97. And it in no way a Unicode OpenType Font. It is an ASCII hack font for Devanagari. The Devanagari glyph are draw in latin names. So, for example when you type a you will get क as glyph of a. So just telling fontspec the font name will not work of that font as I know. On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Arthur Reutenauer < arthur.reutena...@normalesup.org> wrote: > > Now that you mention it, it might be--I didn't pay attention to the date > > below. I think the Unicode Devanagari block is pretty old, but it might > > not be that old. > > Of course it's older, it was already in Unicode 1.1 in 1993 (the > version of Unicode that was unified with ISO 10646) -- and most likely > in Unicode 1.0 in 1991, but I don't have access to that. Devanagari is > one of the most important scripts in the world, it was there from the > beginning. > > Not that this says anything about your font, obviously. What the date > *does* say about the font, though, is that it's most likely simple > TrueType, not OpenType, as OpenType was still in limbo at this time. > >Arthur > > > -- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- Ujjwol Lamichhane http://ujjwol.com.np/ -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] font licenses and embedding
> Now that you mention it, it might be--I didn't pay attention to the date > below. I think the Unicode Devanagari block is pretty old, but it might > not be that old. Of course it's older, it was already in Unicode 1.1 in 1993 (the version of Unicode that was unified with ISO 10646) -- and most likely in Unicode 1.0 in 1991, but I don't have access to that. Devanagari is one of the most important scripts in the world, it was there from the beginning. Not that this says anything about your font, obviously. What the date *does* say about the font, though, is that it's most likely simple TrueType, not OpenType, as OpenType was still in limbo at this time. Arthur -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] font licenses and embedding
On 9/24/2010 11:37 AM, Ujjwol Lamichhane wrote: Maxwell, Sorry! quite out of topic, is that Saṃskṛtā Devanāgarī font a ASCII hack font or Unicode based font ? Now that you mention it, it might be--I didn't pay attention to the date below. I think the Unicode Devanagari block is pretty old, but it might not be that old. Anyway, I found other (Unicode) Devanagari fonts, I was just hoping there was a way to tell license restrictions from otfinfo (without firing up Font Forge, as Mike "Pomax" Kamermans suggested--I'm lazy, if a command line tool can give me a quick answer, I prefer it :-)). On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:09 PM, maxwell mailto:maxw...@umiacs.umd.edu>> wrote: I used XeLaTeX to create a PDF. One of the fonts (SD-TTSurekh) didn't get embedded. Presumably this is because its license doesn't allow that. But how can I tell whether a given font allows embedding without running it through xetex? In particular, otfinfo doesn't seem to provide the info: --- > otfinfo -i /groups/opt/share/fonts/Sanskrit/SDSR0NTT.TTF Family: SD-TTSurekh Subfamily: Normal Full name: SD-TTSurekh Normal PostScript name: SD-TTSurekh-Normal Version: 1.0 Wed Nov 18 18:34:04 1998 Unique ID: Alts:SD-TTSurekh Normal Copyright: ISFOC-SANSKRIT-DEVANAGARI-SUREKH-NORMAL. Copyright (c) 1997-98, C-DAC, PUNE, INDIA. --- -- Mike Maxwell maxw...@umiacs.umd.edu "A library is the best possible imitation, by human beings, of a divine mind, where the whole universe is viewed and understood at the same time... we have invented libraries because we know that we do not have divine powers, but we try to do our best to imitate them." --Umberto Eco -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] font licenses and embedding
Maxwell, Sorry! quite out of topic, is that Saṃskṛtā Devanāgarī font a ASCII hack font or Unicode based font ? On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:09 PM, maxwell wrote: > I used XeLaTeX to create a PDF. One of the fonts (SD-TTSurekh) didn't get > embedded. Presumably this is because its license doesn't allow that. But > how can I tell whether a given font allows embedding without running it > through xetex? In particular, otfinfo doesn't seem to provide the info: > --- > > otfinfo -i /groups/opt/share/fonts/Sanskrit/SDSR0NTT.TTF > Family: SD-TTSurekh > Subfamily: Normal > Full name: SD-TTSurekh Normal > PostScript name: SD-TTSurekh-Normal > Version: 1.0 Wed Nov 18 18:34:04 1998 > Unique ID: Alts:SD-TTSurekh Normal > Copyright: ISFOC-SANSKRIT-DEVANAGARI-SUREKH-NORMAL. Copyright > (c) 1997-98, C-DAC, PUNE, INDIA. > --- > > Mike Maxwell > > > -- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex > -- Ujjwol Lamichhane http://ujjwol.com.np/ -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] font licenses and embedding
font forge: font information, OS/2 table - Mike "Pomax" Kamermans nihongoresources.com -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
