Re: [ft-devel] what old/new FontVal says about these fonts

[Jan Bruns]

Werner LEMBERG:
> A happy new year to all of you!

Yep. The sweet 16 have become nearly 18 now.

> I've finally decided to not support outline TTFs that are missing the
> `hmtx' table.  Theoretically it would be possible to extract the
> advance width (both unscaled and hinted) from the two horizontal
> phantom points, but this would need a major coding effort, I guess,
> and it's not worth the labour for broken fonts.

Sounds like a new year joke to me:

Aren't there good reasons for not including hmtx?
How could a vertical script profit from including hmtx?

If there already is a ttf outline, each glyph already comes
with the precomputed bbox, so lsb=0, rsb=0 and aw=xmax-xmin
is an assumption that seems to shout for support.

Or do you know of fonts that already assumed lsb=-xmin and
aw=xmax-xmin (another assumption that seems to be very natural
at first, because it seems to make more use of bbox info, if
one wasn't concerned about baseline-related stuff)?

Gruss

Jan Bruns