| 1 |
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 08:59:38PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 28 February 2015 at 19:52, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 02/28/2015 01:47 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: |
| 4 |
> >>> |
| 5 |
> >>> Since this is mostly used for web developers, I recommend to leave it |
| 6 |
> >>> off for desktop users, but possibly on for servers, for example. |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> If we do the use expand, we should leave it up for users to set. I |
| 9 |
> >> suggest we default to only otf, if there is a choice. Other formats |
| 10 |
> >> should not be installed by default, unless it's the only option for |
| 11 |
> >> that package. |
| 12 |
> >> |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > This is going to get confusing fast -- please consider just installing |
| 15 |
> > everything by default. If you default to "only OTF," what happens when |
| 16 |
> > you install a foo-ttf package? Is it a no-op? What if there's a package |
| 17 |
> > that only ships WOFF files? A combination of TTF and WOFF? |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > Most of the fonts are tiny and it's not worth the hassle to avoid a few |
| 20 |
> > kilobytes. It will also keep the eclass nice and clean. If you default |
| 21 |
> > to installing everything, then when a user goes out of his way to remove |
| 22 |
> > (say) WOFF, you can go ahead and just ignore WOFF files even if the |
| 23 |
> > result is something stupid like an empty package. |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > (The webfonts might be useful for clients, by the way. If they're not |
| 26 |
> > installed locally, your browser downloads them on-demand and caches them |
| 27 |
> > for later use.) |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Actually, after thinking about it some more, and doing some more |
| 32 |
> research, I think this approach is unnecessary. Unless someone can |
| 33 |
> tell me otherwise, I don't think we have any software that can handle |
| 34 |
> truetype fonts but not opentype fonts. Most if not all of these |
| 35 |
> packages use media-libs/freetype, which displays both formats just |
| 36 |
> fine. So when we have font packages that offer both ttf and otf, then |
| 37 |
> we should just install the superior format, which is OpenType. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> For packages that only offer one format, we install that format. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Webfonts are also not an issue, as they are simply repackaged OpenType |
| 42 |
> fonts aimed at web delivery. But most web developers use third party |
| 43 |
> CDNs for that, such as Google Fonts. For the very few people who want |
| 44 |
> to serve WOFF fonts from their own websites, I'm sure they can locate |
| 45 |
> them as necessary. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> And webfonts are not useful for clients. Users should simply install |
| 48 |
> the otf (or ttf) format of those fonts locally, and they will be |
| 49 |
> picked up instead of the webfonts. |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> Summarized, I propose the following policy: |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> 1. If there is a choice of formats between otf and ttf, install only otf. |
| 54 |
> 2. Do not install webfonts. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
I agree with your policy, but I think it's still a good idea to offer a |
| 57 |
mechanism to install the other formats for those who need it, maybe via |
| 58 |
truetype and woff or webfont USE flags. LaTeX, for example, may not be |
| 59 |
able to use OpenType fonts, unless you use XeTeX, or other newer |
| 60 |
variant, and sometimes a package you may want to use is only available |
| 61 |
for plain LaTeX or PDFTeX (pst-solides3d and pstricks come to mind). |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
We could have global USE flags for each popular font format, turn on the |
| 64 |
flag for OpenType by default, and let users choose extra formats they |
| 65 |
want. Another thing we might want to work on is on a way to convert |
| 66 |
fonts for use with legacy LaTeX software that can't use OpenType files. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
Best, |
| 69 |
—Guilherme |
Archives