Re: [Fonts] Helvetica font question for Xfree86

d BDFs from X11R6.4 on ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/R6.4/xc/fonts/bdf/. Markus -- Markus Kuhn, Computer Lab, Univ of Cambridge, GB http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ | __oo_O..O_oo__ ___ Fonts mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/fonts

[Fonts] Security vulnerabilities in XFree86 font libraries

Remote and local security vulnerabilities in XFree86 font libraries http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/335592 Markus -- Markus Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ || CB3 0FD, Great Britain ___ Fonts

Re: [Fonts] Xfree86 4.3 and big 5 fonts ?

t internally from big5 to Unicode. It then scans all available fonts in order to see, which font can provide it with which Unicode character. Markus -- Markus Kuhn, Computer Lab, Univ of Cambridge, GB http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ | __oo_O..O_oo__ _

Re: [Fonts] font.conf config errors

ate -u" must show Universal Time (GMT) and "date" must show local time - file a bug report to the author of the program that you belive last wrote the above XML file and remind them of the SGML comment syntax Markus -- Markus Kuhn, Computer L

[Fonts] Re: Adding Cyrillic to Adobe/B&H ISO 10646-1 core fonts

at the names and XLFDs of Adobe and B&H pixel BDFs with added third-party glyphs should be are welcome, especially from the X Consortium veterans that added these core fonts in the first place. Markus -- Markus Kuhn, Computer Lab, Univ of Cambridge, GB http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ | __oo_O.

Re: [Fonts] request of Mongolian letters

x27;t add them easily to the Adobe and B&H fonts though, because these are merely automatically precomposition-extended versions of original PostScript standard encoding fonts. But these fonts don't have any of the other Cyrilic characters either. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs-fo

Re: [Fonts] request

ontribution to the -misc-fixed-* fonts, best read the README file in http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/download/ucs-fonts.tar.gz Thanks, Markus (-misc-fixed-* core pixel font maintainer for XFree86) -- Markus Kuhn, Computer Lab, Univ of Cambridge, GB http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/

Re: [Fonts] filtered Tempest fonts

tions of a single device unless >> £1e6 were involved. Burglary risks might be a far more important concern (as a friend of mine learned painfully recently, when he finally realized the difference between a realdog and a robodog after burglars took his Aibo). Markus -- Markus Kuhn, Compute

Re: [Fonts] filtered Tempest fonts

e practically impossible to see for an eavesdropper, unless they are dithered significantly. Markus -- Markus Kuhn, Computer Lab, Univ of Cambridge, GB http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ | __oo_O..O_oo__ ___ Fonts mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/fonts

Re: [Fonts] filtered Tempest fonts

things seriously usually have already taken care of voice eavesdropping, a in comparison far more significant threat. And once you believe that you have taken care of RF shielding, you can start to worry about optical VHF leaks from CRTs: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/emsec/optical-faq.html T

Re: [Fonts] filtered Tempest fonts

f a glyph, as it would be essential to make sure the filtering does not actually leak more information on digital video links. Putting an anti-tempest filter into freetype2 has been on my todo list for a long time (and might remain there a bit longer given current workload). Markus -- Markus K

Re: [Fonts] Trademarks in the names of the core fonts

in the BDF file and not in some rendering routine is merely a technical detail and shouldn't change trademark issues in any way. Markus -- Markus Kuhn, Computer Lab, Univ of Cambridge, GB http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ | __oo_O..O_oo__ ___ Fon

Re: [Fonts] Trademarks in the names of the core fonts

This was discussed before. None of the commercial font suppliers considers pixel fonts to be of any commercial interest whatsoever today, therefore the problem you outline remains a purely theoretical concern. Markus -- Markus Kuhn, Computer Lab, Univ of Cambridge, GB http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk

Re: [Fonts] Thai fonts

The 6x13, 8x13, 9x15, 9x18, and 10x20 -misc-fixed-*-iso10646-1 XFree86 fonts all contain the Thai block of Unicode and XFree86 xterm supports that in UTF-8 mode. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/unicode.html Markus -- Markus Kuhn, Computer Lab, Univ of Cambridge, GB http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk

[Fonts] New Adobe glyphlist.txt

combining sequences (in the Postscript glyph name now separated by _). Markus -- Markus Kuhn, Computer Lab, Univ of Cambridge, GB http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ | __oo_O..O_oo__ ___ Fonts mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo

Re: [Fonts] small fix for fontconfig script

Sylvain Pasche wrote on 2002-08-11 22:16 UTC: > LANG=C >-export LANG >+LC_ALL=C >+export LANG LC_ALL The line export LC_ALL=C should replace all of the above in any environment where the script author wants to disable all locale-dependent behaviour. Markus -- Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Labora

Re: [Fonts]1257 (Baltic) font support.

"frankie" wrote on 2002-12-09 10:12 UTC: > May i know where can i find some free fonts that support Microsoft > Windows Codepage 1257 (Baltic) for X-Windows(4.0.2). I have downloaded > latin7 font in pcf format, but it's not support all the character in 1257 > codepage. Can some body help!

Re: [Fonts]Adobe-helvatica and vietnamese glyphs

Pablo Saratxaga wrote on 2002-09-16 11:25 UTC: > The Adobe Helvetica fonts shipped with XFree86 4.2 provide a lot of > vietnamese glyphs, however, are missing all the ones with the "hook" tone > marker; that makes them unsuitable for vietnamese; but then why providing > the other vietnamese-only l

[Fonts]Is hinting worth the effort?

Another quick discussion related to font file format philosophy: Is hinting really worth the effort? Font file formats (even scalable ones) in principle ought to be relatively simple creatures. The only aspect that really adds enormous amounts of complexity, both with regard to the development

[Fonts]Re: Using TTF as a bitmap-only file format

Owen Taylor wrote on 2002-08-20 14:50 UTC: > > I'm afraid that a vast majority of programs and OS currently using TTF > > simple expect them to always have scalable glyphs; what will happen > > if one of such programs tries to use a bitmap only font for displaying > > at a size for xhich there are

[Fonts]-misc-fixed-*-iso10646-1 fonts update

I've started working on the -misc-fixed-*-iso10646-1 fonts again, in particular on upgrading them towards Unicode 3.2 coverage. I did already 6x13, 9x15 and 9x18, though many of the really obscure new maths symbols and arrows are still missing. If there is something you would like to contribute to

[Fonts]Re: POSIX:2001 freely available, STIX Fonts

Keith Packard wrote on 2002-07-10 01:09 UTC: > > AFAIK, SUS and POSIX say > > that it's implementation-dependent. > > Too bad the POSIX spec is closed so I can't check. For all of you who haven't heard yet, SUS3 and POSIX:2001 are now the same thing and are freely available online on http://w

Re: [Fonts] Fonts & Resolutions

James A. Crippen wrote on 2002-06-23 01:59 UTC: > Does anyone recall exactly how old DDC is? Revision history of the VESA DDC standard (I have it in PDF): version 1: 1994-08-12 version 2: 1996-04-09 version 3: 1997-12-15 Markus -- Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge,

Re: Xft and MathML [Was: [Fonts]Xft for OpenGL]

"Roger B. Sidje" wrote on 2002-06-18 17:51 UTC: > Even the new Unicode 3.2 still doesn't cover all the characters > that are needed for MathML layout. [...] stretchy MathML characters. The bracket components are in Unicode 3.2 for the sole reason that they were also present in legacy terminal cha

Re: [Fonts]small squares instead of letters

Vinod wrote on 2002-06-05 17:01 UTC: > Hi there.I had just installed the linux realplayer on > my freebsd 4.5 release and the real player works just > fine.but all letters on the buttons of the player are > replaced by small squares.like the 'OK' button is a > button with two squares, 'File' with

[Fonts]Re: Adobe Glyph Names <-> Unicode 3.2 (was: Xft and MathML)

"James H. Cloos Jr." wrote on 2002-06-05 00:06 UTC: > The (postscript versions of the) interesting math fonts > I beleive all predate adobe's glyph naming recomendations. (At least > for the TeX-related ones; I cannot speak definitively on mozilla's > other set of recomended math fonts (by bitstr

[Fonts]Re: Adobe Glyph Names <-> Unicode 3.2 (was: Xft and MathML)

Keith Packard wrote on 2002-06-04 16:08 UTC: > At the font level, I can use the Type1 tables to map names to Unicode > codepoints for fonts which don't yet support Unicode 3.2 mappings for the > new entries. [...] I need to unify the Adobe glyph names with the > MathML glyphs and the Unicode 3.2 s

Re: Xft and MathML [Was: [Fonts]Xft for OpenGL]

> http://www.mozilla.org/projects/mathml/ Keith, >From the font text chart on http://www.mozilla.org/projects/mathml/fonts/chars/table.html I get the impression that the MathML font system still uses a huge number of private use area characters to map its fonts to Unicode. This was necessary

Re: [Fonts]Disable font scaling and make Keith happy too [patch]

Juliusz Chroboczek wrote on 2002-06-03 06:42 UTC: > Following the objections to my previous patch, here's a version that > sports three build-time and two runtime mechanisms for configuring the > bitmap scaling code in or out. Say wow. Wow, you have just rediscovered the second law of thermodyna

Re: [Fonts]Special Characters

James A. Crippen wrote on 2002-03-24 02:39 UTC: > Markus Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > En and em dashes, ellipses, etc. are available under XFree86 in the ISO > > 10646-1 encoding in the 0x20XY range. > > Can Type1 fonts be larger than 256 characters thou

Re: [Fonts]Special Characters

Thomas Ronayne wrote on 2002-03-23 16:45 UTC: > I'm going nuts with trying to follow more than one set of confusing > instructions about how to install Type1 (and other) fonts for use with > XFree86; specifically the characters that appear between 128 and 160 (I > need to be able to "type" things

Re: [Fonts]Re: Type 1 and 0x27 [was: Hebrew...]

Aidan Kehoe wrote on 2002-03-20 23:39 UTC: > Yeah, Juliusz has a point. There's nothing about the word "Apostrophe" > that says anything either way about curliness. Please read the Unicode 3.0 book actually. The word "apostrophe" is just a historic name. Unicode explicitely says that it is a dire

Re: [Fonts]Re: Hebrew Type1 Fonts (fwd)

Juliusz Chroboczek wrote on 2002-03-19 16:06 UTC: > OTOH, XFree86 is already incompatible with the SI for bitmap fonts. I am being told that the next SI will be fully XFree86 compatible in that respect. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/quotes.html Please follow Adobe's character name <-> Unic

[Fonts]Re: Glyph compression

Keith Packard wrote on 2002-03-08 00:09 UTC: > I was hoping we'd find a simple compression technique that could yield > a value for 'f' of less than one; certainly the regularity of the data > leads one to believe that it is possible. Candidates: - ITU's Group 4 fax compression simple, w

[Fonts]Re: Font compression factors and resolution

Juliusz Chroboczek wrote on 2002-03-06 15:33 UTC: > JC> The result is that PK's compression is subliniear on this face at mag > JC> factors less than 14 and superlinear above mag factor 14. > > PK does run-length encoding, right? Then it should be linear as the > point-size goes towards infinity

Re: [Fonts]More on CID-keyed JP fonts

Erik van der Poel wrote on 2002-03-05 17:20 UTC: > You're absolutely right. I checked unicode.org, and all of the East > Asian tables have been moved to a directory called OBSOLETE. The readme > file says August 1, 2001. The reason is that the availability of these tables led people to the implem

Re: [Fonts]Standard Type Service Framework (STSF): Public Review

Alexander Gelfenbain wrote on 2002-03-04 22:04 UTC: > In addition to that we were considering adding a rich security > model with font certificates (public/private key pairs) and permissions, > but decided to do it in the second version, as soon as we implement font > sharing between ST Server ru

Re: [Fonts]Fonts displayed as white boxes

Julian Laub wrote on 2002-03-01 09:29 UTC: > I just installed Suse 7.3 and Xfree 3.3.6 (my Cirrus Logic 7555 is not > supported by newer version) on a new computer and everything works fine > exept that most fonts are displayed as white boxes. Ancient GTK bug that makes it allergic to presence of

Re: [Fonts]Outlines to borrow

On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 05:41:08PM +, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > In addition, you may want to check the GhostScript fonts from URW++ > (in version 6.0 or later) which come under the GPL -- which will make > your font impossible (or unlikely?) to be included in XFree86. I thought that in the

Re: [Fonts] Complex text layout and mapping screen coordinates

Keyur Shroff wrote on 2002-02-26 08:57 UTC: > > The X protocol is not specified in terms of code points > > of character sets. > > See 'man XDrawString'. See the defination of "string" > > stringSpecifies the character string. > [...] > At all these places I found the indication of usi

Re: [Fonts]Quick question on the BDF fonts

"Mike A. Harris" wrote on 2002-02-05 10:29 UTC: > Is there a PCF font specification somewhere? No, there isn't. Use the source, Luke! > I've got the BDF one included with X sources. Remember: If documentation and code disagree, both are probabaly wrong. There is also another newer BDF spec from

Re: [Fonts]Quick question on the BDF fonts

Brian Stell wrote on 2002-02-04 16:39 UTC: > Would you kindly open a bugzilla bug on this? 123408 Markus -- Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK Email: mkuhn at acm.org, WWW: ___ Fonts m

Re: [Fonts]Quick question on the BDF fonts

Brian Stell wrote on 2002-02-04 15:44 UTC: > What happens when the iso10646 font does not have all the > char/glyphs in a iso8859-x encoding? > > The strageties I can think of are: > > 1) produce a iso8859-x font with missing glyph: > > This seems likely to cause "blank" chars to be >

Re: [Fonts]Quick question on the BDF fonts

"Mike A. Harris" wrote on 2002-02-04 08:27 UTC: > Do I understand correctly that the xfs font server and also the > Xserver can both now re-encode ISO10646 BDF fonts on the fly to > the various ISO8859-* and other encodings? I don't think so. At the moment, we use the Perl script ucs2any in ord

Re: [Fonts]Using non-Unicode PCF fonts with Xft

Keith Packard wrote on 2002-02-02 20:56 UTC: > Instead, I'd like to suggest that we create a separate tool that can > transcode the fonts not already available in a Unicode version into Unicode > for use by all Freetype based applications. I have already one written in Perl that converts non-Unic

Re: [Devel] Re: [Fonts]Another approach to text in X

"Mike A. Harris" wrote on 2002-02-02 03:15 UTC: > It might as well say "Sun did > not design this software for use in making peanut butter > sandwiches" if it bares no real meaning. The day /bin/laden finds out how to use beanut butter to kill 3000 US citizens every year (e.g., by merely watchi

Re: [Devel] Re: [Fonts]Another approach to text in X

"Mike A. Harris" wrote on 2002-01-30 11:11 UTC: > >I am afraid that statement in Sun license above exactly means that you can't > >use this software (ST library) in "design, construction, operation or > >maintenance of any nuclear facility", including nuclear reactors and nuclear > >weapons. >

[Fonts]Re: IPA fonts

RTTJ wrote on 2002-01-28 21:56 UTC: > I'm working with a local tribe whose language is written with a subset of the > IPA, International Phonetics Alphabet. [... lengthy essey on some obscure Win32 product deleted ...] If what you *really* want to achieve under Linux is to edit plaintext files t

Re: [Fonts]warning? if you received Vol 1 #327 SCAM? Fonts digest, Vol 1 #327 - 1 msg

RTTJ wrote on 2002-01-23 20:08 UTC: > Did you see the email this abuser sent? Don't panic. It's called "spam", and the best way of dealing with it is a fast delete function in your emailer. Not having the HTML parser of your mailer active it a plus as well, and rejecting any HTML-only email reduc

Re: [Fonts]Proposal for XML-based font configuration

Juliusz Chroboczek wrote on 2002-01-22 07:57 UTC: > KP> I've decided to give XML a try and see how it looks; [...] > Keith, please, don't. I strongly agree. XML is an abdomination and practically all people who think that XML is the solution to their problem have neither understood XML nor their

Re: [Fonts]Another approach to text in X

Sergey Babkin wrote on 2001-12-21 01:41 UTC: > > > It would be good if it also could provide the output in PostScript. > > > > It would be capable of generating outlines. Converting them to PostScript > > is trivial. > > I think, not quite trivial. I guess I should first explain that > I don't w

Re: [Fonts]Re: [Render] Re: Removing core support from Xft

Steve Swales wrote on 2001-12-14 19:56 UTC: > >> >I suggest that instead of using server-side fonts, Xft > >> >should rasterize glyphs with FreeType and draw with the Render extension > >> >where available and using the core protocol for legacy servers without > >> >Render support. > > But ever

[Fonts]Re: Removing core support from Xft

Steve Swales wrote on 2001-12-14 18:17 UTC: > Since render is not yet a standard extension, and making this change would > disable Xft on all commercial X servers aside from XFree86, I would caution > against it at this time. I think, Keith addressed that objection already in his original propo

Re: [Fonts]What format should contributed fonts use?

shaheed wrote on 2001-12-05 22:34 UTC: > This brings me to my real question: what format should fonts contributed to > XFree86 take: pcf pfa? Or something else I'd say: In the case of bitmap files, use BDF (in the *-ISO10646-1 encoding), in the case of outline fonts use TrueType. Markus -- M

[Fonts]Re: font sizes

Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote on 2001-11-26 18:43 UTC: > > This argues rather strongly for a decoupling of physical monitor resolution > > from effective DPI used in calculating presentation sizes. In this world, > > we might talk about a "logical" DPI, calculated and stored separately from > > the

Re: [Fonts]Legal Protection of Type Faces

On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Vadim Plessky wrote: > BTW: do you have, by chance, list of fonts/typeface for which patents > ("designs") expired? Since the 25 years limit seems to come from an international treaty, I'd say that we are very much legally on the safe side all over the world if we redraw, hin

[Fonts]Legal Protection of Type Faces

On Tuesday 23 October 2001 21:57, Sergej Malinovski wrote: > I was reading the free FontLab Manual the other day and it says that > you can patent fonts. The verb "to patent" is a bit misleading here, because the underlying legislation is not the "patent law", but the "designs law" of the respect

Re: [Fonts]BUG(?): fixed-width fonts with glyphs wider than DWIDTH

On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, _ _ wrote: > There is a very serious problem with many X > applications that has been bugging me for some time, > and I'd like to know what you all have to say on the > matter and what is being done about it. The problem is > that if you create a fixed-width BDF font and have

Re: [Fonts]misc 6x10 Bold font missing

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Mark Leisher wrote: > Ryan> I've been able to get around this problem by copying the 6x10 font > Ryan> files to 6x10B, and editing the fonts.dir and fonst.alias to make > Ryan> entries for the 6x10B. But I have to do this everytime I upgrade X. > > Ryan> Is th

Re: [Fonts]misc 6x10 Bold font missing

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Ryan Eatmon wrote: > For the past few releases I've been missing the misc 6x10 Bold font. > I use the 6x10 as my main font, and looking at man pages and top with no > matching bold is not fun. There never has been a 6x10B font in any X11 release as far as I am aware. 6x13 is

Re: [Fonts]freettf project?

I found that simply declaring the output of a font project to be under the "public domain - share and enjoy" license is the simplest and most easy to understand solution that will encourage most contributions and will waste the least time with such discussions. The word "enjoy" is the most relevan

Re: [Fonts]freettf project?

Note please that Ghostscript ships with pretty decent free Type1 versions of the classical PostScript standard fonts. I suggest that anyone thinking about starting a free outline UCS font considers extending these in a way that preserves the existing established style of these fonts. This would le

Re: [Fonts]XFree 3.3.6 - Unicode

On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, BERNARDES,JOAN (Non-HP-Brazil,ex1) wrote: > I want to run a Java app in a XFree 3.3.6, but this java app use > Unicode. What should I do to work? What exactly does not work? > I've read that just XFree 4.1 has Unicode support, this is right? What exactly do you m