Hi Daf,
Today at 18:34, Dafydd Harries wrote:
> Is this problem only with Nimbus Mono? Perhaps you could provide a
> screenshot with a font that isn't broken for comparison purposes.
Yes, this is a problem only with Nimbus Mono, and only with Oblique,
Bold and Oblique Bold. I've checked Debian
Ar 03/02/2005 am 01:22, ysgrifennodd Danilo Åegan:
> In particular, many Cyrillic glyphs are incorrectly scaled (perhaps
> due to different em-sizes? I don't know). Metrics are also wrong
> (and they seem to be wrong in the same way as the glyphs size is):
>
> http://kvota.net/fonts/urwcyr/nim
Danilo,
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 01:22:08AM +0100, Danilo Åegan wrote:
> Yesterday at 1:46, Dafydd Harries wrote:
> > http://muse.19inch.net/~daf/dump/271427/
> I see many problems with these fonts.
> In particular, many Cyrillic glyphs are incorrectly scaled (perhaps
> due to different em-s
Yesterday at 1:46, Dafydd Harries wrote:
> http://muse.19inch.net/~daf/dump/271427/
I see many problems with these fonts.
In particular, many Cyrillic glyphs are incorrectly scaled (perhaps
due to different em-sizes? I don't know). Metrics are also wrong
(and they seem to be wrong in the
* Dafydd Harries:
> Ok, I now have a list of glyphs to copy based on your list and the ones
> which I've identified as broken. I've uploaded a new .deb, plus the
> latest versions of my scripts and their various outputs to the same
> location as before:
>
> http://muse.19inch.net/~daf/dump/
Today at 1:46, Dafydd Harries wrote:
> Ok, I now have a list of glyphs to copy based on your list and the ones
> which I've identified as broken. I've uploaded a new .deb, plus the
> latest versions of my scripts and their various outputs to the same
> location as before:
>
> http://muse.19i
I've just realised that it's Florian, who did the last (NMU) upload of
gsfonts, who is the submitter of this bug and not Stefan, who reported
the bug originally as #250949. I'm CCing Stefan.
Stefan, if you'd like to catch up on what's been happening, the bug log
is available here:
http://
Hi Steve,
Today at 1:38, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I don't imagine that a private use glyph is anything we should be overly
> worried about release-wise...
Provided how simple it is to actually integrate them as well, I see no
reason not to. Adobe PUA is guaranteed to be static, and it's not
real
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 04:04:54PM +, Dafydd Harries wrote:
> > > Here's the bug:
> > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=271427
> > Strictly Serbian glyphs (used in none of the other Cyrillic languages,
> > except maybe some of them in Macedonian, but the same explanation
> >
Today at 17:04, Dafydd Harries wrote:
> Ah, this list is just what I need. However, there are some glyphs which
> are not in your list (see my previous mail to the bug report for
> details), but which also seem to be broken. Perhaps some non-Serbian
> Cyrillic glyphs are also broken.
Yes, I've no
Ar 29/01/2005 am 13:49, ysgrifennodd Danilo Åegan:
> Heya Daf,
>
> Nice to see a known name working on thisâit gives me a warm and fuzzy
> feeling :)
Well, I got a nice feeling when I saw that you've been working on this
stuff before. :)
> Today at 9:14, Dafydd Harries wrote:
>
> > I've been wo
11 matches
Mail list logo
