[Pkg-fonts-devel] Standardizing the names of the font packages
Rogério Brito
rbrito at ime.usp.br
Sun Mar 28 11:12:36 UTC 2010
Dear people.
Another e-mail of mine.
(Well, all of these are just summaries of what has been going on my mind
since I was accepted on the team.)
We have, perhaps, 3 major common scalable font formats: PostScript,
TrueType and OpenType. It seems that some work has already gone into
standardizing the names of the font packages, but I still have some
questions:
* for TrueType, OpenType, and PostScript, the prefixes used seem to be,
respectively, ttf-, otf- and t1-, if I understand it correctly. Of
course, a PostScript font may not always be in Type1 format.
The way I see it, the end-user (not the overly specialized typesetter)
should not care that much about the type of the fonts that s/he will
use and it would be enough to just use the ps- prefix for package
names that contain PostScript fonts.
Is this too wrong? :-)
* the second part of the names of the fonts seem to include the maker (I
am using the work "maker" here in a general sense). In some cases, the
maker is well known (say, ttf-bitstream-vera), but that's not always
the case: see ttf-thai-arundina.
It would be desirable to have the names of the font packages in the
form format-maker-name[-extra], where the part enclosed in brackets
would say some extra information.
If the maker is not known, perhaps some placeholder could be put
there?
Yes, I would have some difficulties when packaging something like this:
,----
| Family: ITC Garamond Std
| Subfamily: Light
| Full name: ITC Garamond Std Light
| PostScript name: ITCGaramondStd-Lt
| Preferred family: ITC Garamond Std
| Preferred subfamily: Light
| Mac font menu name: ITC Garamond Std Lt
| Version: OTF 1.018;PS 001.000;Core 1.0.31;makeotf.lib1.4.1585
| Unique ID: 1.018;ADBE;ITCGaramondStd-Lt
| Designer: Tony Stan
| Vendor URL: http://www.adobe.com/type
| Trademark: ITC Garamond is a trademark of International Typeface Corporation.
| Copyright: Copyright © 1994, 2001 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All Rights Reserved.
| License URL: http://www.adobe.com/type/legal.html
`----
Should maker be ITC (International Typeface Corporation) or should it
be Adobe? I would vote on itc, regarding Adobe as just a distributor,
not a "maker".
Also what about a font with its family "Sabon LT Std" (LT stands for
Linotype, to the best of my knowledge). Would it be packaged as
otf-lt-sabon-std (if it were OpenType, of course)?
I guess that these are some difficulties that the team would have, but
it would be quite nice to have them solved already in a systematic way
(disclaimer: I have not yet read the fonts subpolicy).
Thanks for any comments,
--
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel
mailing list