[luatex] Why obsolete the fontforge name space?
yuleopen at gmail.com
Tue Mar 24 09:27:03 CET 2009
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Arthur Reutenauer
<arthur.reutenauer at normalesup.org> wrote:
>> PS, on the dev-luatex mailing list
>> you doubted whether freetype2 will be sufficient for advanced fonts,
>> and in fact ft2 have most of the features you want:
> From the list you made below, it seems that it doesn't because
> OpenType support belongs to HarfBuzz, as has already been said.
> FontForge already does all of that.
I know that project, and the idea is mentioned in the first mail of this thread.
Yes, FontForge solve all the problems FT2+HarfBuzz do, but:
- HarfBuzz+FT2 is more lightweigh/memory/computational efficient than
- FT2 has been tested by thousands and thousands of software programs
(it is the basis of Unix GUI program + handhold device GUI + many
Windows and Mac Apps).
- HarfBuzz, though not public released, is the key component of Pango
[a part of GTK+] and Scribe [a part of QT application framework], so
it also has been tested by many software programs (All GTK+ and QT
program use HarfBuzz for text layout).
So, FT2+HB are the quasi-standard of the software world, This approach
is more robust and has much fewer bugs.
If there are sufficient funding, write such binding is beneficial.
Of course, I admit FontForge is useful in LuaTeX, and can solve many
problems FreeType cannot solve (like font generation).
>> So I think it is possible to write a similar binding.
>> Maybe we can apply for a Google SoC project for this?
> TUG's candidature to GSoC has been rejected
> (http://tug.org/pipermail/summer-of-code/2009/000164.html), so, not this
bad to know that:(
More information about the luatex