On 8/6/2017 6:38 PM, Bobby de Vos wrote:
He also thinks fontconfig/freetype should be enhanced so TrueType (and I would add OpenType) fonts are prioritized before WOFF.
The idea of "installing" a WOFF resource for serving by an OS font manager is... bad? That's not what WOFF are for, they are explicitly intended to NOT be system level fonts, and allow certain data to be omitted because the deployment is known to not be DTP and applications but web content through CSS instructions. Using WOFF anyway for something like Xe(La)TeX makes no sense, and if Debian allows WOFF to be installed at the OS level, that's worth notifying the team over because that's not a thing your OS should be doing. Maybe Jonathan as one of the WOFF spec authors has a more nuanced opinion here, but this problem sounds like it stems directly from an OS treating WOFF resources as something they are absolutely not, with the obvious and predictable result of breaking expectations about font resource handling.
Also on a technical note, there is no "truetype vs. opentype" in the context of font parsers. There are only OpenType fonts, all with the same magic number, and the "truetype" part refers to one of several ways in which any OpenType font organises the glyph data. In the context of prioritising which font to load here, it's OpenType vs. WOFF. Which tables the OpenType font uses makes no difference. The fact that OpenType is a system installable font, and WOFF are not, is the real difference. So hopefully the mess that the very notion of "installing-WOFF-as-system-fonts" introduces can be looked at, thought about, and then wisely removed again. It makes no sense at all.
- Pomax -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
