>On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 08:05:22 +0400 >Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Chris > > Thank you enormously for you efforts here. When things don't add up, that's when it get interesting. ;o) > Am putting this back on the list Good idea. Only took it off while passing file attachments. > My testing hasn't yet come up with anything that adds that mysterious > Unsigned Bit. I'll confirm that later, if I am able. > Even with Groovy.ttf > The big difference I can see between your Groovy and mine is that when > played in the Flash Player, yours shows all the characters simply lined > up in several rows. Mine shows them larger, in one row, and has a > navigation system. Groovy? You mean the grunge2 files? ;o) The obvious thing there is that the default movie size is different. The conversion itself appears to depend on what is best for the font, it's content, and layout. > I assume THAT is the where the bigger filesize comes in. But why your > system is compiling a completely different file to mine is a mystery. The tests need to be consistent! Pretty random at the moment. > My Unix is a VPS, with no special installs (as I am incapable of that). Depends on what you mean by special installs! I have SWFTools on both a VPS ( though here again the inveterate meddler has struck ) and locally. > I have two copies of SWFTools. One standard 0.9.1 and one patched by > Ricardo. 0.9.1 and latest git here. ( You might wish to class a Ricardo patched SWFtools, as a special install. ;o) ) > Both the versions give the same (frustrating) result for me. That's actually a good thing! At least there is some consistency between versions. Regards, Chris.
