Re: Font Problems

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

Eric Mader <mader jtcsv com> writes:

> At 12:08 PM 8/23/2002, Owen Taylor wrote:
> >How is an "empty LangSys" represented in a font? I'm not opposed
> >to adding in some sort of tolerance if it's pretty clean, but if
> >there is a LangSys pointing off the end of the font or something,
> >then I think we should definitely refuse to load the font.
> >
> >In general, I think we should be strict about validation of fonts
> >until we actually have reports about production fonts that are
> >causing problems ... otherwise, we are just encouraging (in a small
> >way) such broken fonts.
> 
> In this particular font, it had a default LangSys with no features,
> and the LangSys count was zero. So, one could argue that this is well
> formed, but just useless. (I guess it's a stub left around by an early
> version of some font building tool...) My patch just skips over the
> offending script and continues to read the other one, which is
> fine. (It will reject the font if there are *no* vaild scripts.)
> 
> I don't have a stong feeling about this one way or the other, so I'm
> OK with not including the patch.

We should most likely accept "well formed but useless" tables. Can
you provide your patch so I can take a look at it?

                                        Owen