Edit report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=52403&edit=1
ID: 52403
Updated by: h...@php.net
Reported by: h...@php.net
Summary: imagettfbbox/imagettftext "Could not read font"
error
Status: Bogus
Type: Bug
Package: GD related
Operating System: CentOS4
PHP Version: 5.2.13
Block user comment: N
New Comment:
The issue is not between open and read.
imagettfbbox() says the file cannot be read.
is_readable() says the file can be read.
This is the issue. "Open" is never mentioned in the error.
The wording is poor, you are trying to dismiss it as bogus because you
deem it unimportant.
You seem to agree that the wording is ambiguous and can be improved, yet
you are choosing to ignore it. That is just rude, not polite.
Is it too much to ask to improve the wording in the name of clarity?
Previous Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2010-10-19 20:50:53] paj...@php.net
Let me rephrase a last time, I won't change this error at this stage. So
keep this report as bogus as there is no bug here. The meaning of open
and read are clear.
I did not say that reporting issues is not valuable. I love bugs
reports. However you also have to consider polite negative replies, with
arguments.
The gain (trying to replace the words open and read so users can
understand the difference between these two actions) is not enough in
regard to the hassle that it will introduce from a test point of view.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2010-10-19 20:40:12] h...@php.net
To confirm,
"could not find/read font" means the file is not readable.
"Could not read font" means what?
And you don't believe these errors are ambiguous?
There is clearly an issue with the error being too ambiguous. The gain
would be to improve the end user experience.
Or are we to assume that improvements are no longer worth reporting?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2010-10-19 18:29:43] paj...@php.net
The error if the file does not exist or cannot be open is "could not
find/read font".
The error when GD cannot (actually Freetype failed) read the font file
is "could not read font", which is perfectly correct. There is no bug
here and I won't change this error (will have to change in external GD
as well, duplicate tests, etc. for no gain).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2010-10-18 22:20:55] h...@php.net
No, the message is ambiguous. Consider this...
If GD is able to read the file, it is readable.
If GD is unable to read the file, it is unreadable.
We know the file is readable, that is not the problem.
If GD is able to validate the file, it is valid.
If GD is unable to validate the file, it is invalid.
We do not know whether the file is valid or not.
Alternatively,
If GD is able to support the file, it is supported.
If GD is unable to support the file, it is unsupported.
We do not know whether the file is supported or not.
To use "read" is too ambiguous in this context.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2010-10-18 20:29:04] paj...@php.net
The message is correct. As some fonts are supported by some freetype
versions. It does not mean that the font file is invalid, but that ft
(gd) could not read it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=52403
--
Edit this bug report at http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=52403&edit=1
