[Pkg-fonts-devel] location of woff files

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Nicolas Spalinger (2017-04-04 11:32:59)
> On 04/04/2017 09:20 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Quoting Bobby de Vos (2017-04-04 00:22:11)
> >> Greetings,
> >>
> >> Where should .woff files be installed? For the fonts-sil-andikanewbasic
> >> package, .woff files are installed to
> >>
> >> /usr/share/fonts/woff/andikanewbasic
> >>
> >> One user encountered a problem using XeTeX specifying the font as Andika
> >> New Basic, I guess fontconfig found the .woff file before the .ttf file
> >> for this font, and XeTeX could not process the .woff file. It seems
> >> better to me to have the .woff file under the documentation for the
> >> font. For NRSI fonts, this would work well, as NRSI ships two files
> >>
> >>  1. AndikaNewBasic-webfont-example.html
> >>  2. AndikaNewBasic-webfont-example.css
> >>
> >> that use a .woff file in the same directory at the .html and .css files
> >> to show an example of the font.
> > 
> > Please put woff files below /usr/share/fonts/woff
> > 
> > And please file a bugreport against packages choking on the existence of 
> > woff files in a generally discoverable place: That is not specific to 
> > your package.
> > 
> > Similar for eot fonts.
> 
> I don't see anywhere support for these formats in fontconfig.
> What did I miss? 

Font packages have more uses than via fontconfig.


> These formats are web-native, why are they added to the outside of a 
> webserver DocumentRoot?

Font packages are not targeted one documentroot: Each package (or 
user-provided) documentroot can symlink a font from a shared location.


> Why should we ship these fonts when GUI apps are looking when they are 
> only useful for webapps ?

Font packages are not exclusively for GUI apps nor web apps.


> How about they are put elsewhere instead of breaking existing apps?

Other font packages already use the path /usr/share/fonts/woff - so if 
that breaks XeLaTeX or other programs, then we have a bug already.  
Therefore please file the bugreport if that path cause problems, no 
matter if then using that path in any new package.


> AFAICT this woff inclusion is only a recent trend, isn't it? 

Relatively, yes.


> https://webapps-common.alioth.debian.org/draft/html/ch-issues.html#s-issues-fhs
> says /usr/share/PACKAGE/www or /usr/lib/PACKAGE

Makes sense for webapps to define a path for that specifically - they 
can then symlink _shared_ resources like fonts and javascript and css 
from respective _shared_ paths for those.


> About EOT, do you realize eot is a obsolete 
> platform-and-browser-specific format (with DRM features) only 
> supported by older versions of IE?

I was unaware of that.  Thanks for mentioning.

When that particular browser for that particular platform no longer 
receive any support from any Debian packages, we can stop mention 
/usr/share/fonts/eof as the proper shared path for such fonts.  Until 
then it makes sense to place such fonts there rather than at other 
places in the system.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20170404/804b5061/attachment-0001.sig>