Quoting Nicolas Spalinger (2017-04-04 11:32:59) > On 04/04/2017 09:20 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Quoting Bobby de Vos (2017-04-04 00:22:11) > >> Greetings, > >> > >> Where should .woff files be installed? For the fonts-sil-andikanewbasic > >> package, .woff files are installed to > >> > >> /usr/share/fonts/woff/andikanewbasic > >> > >> One user encountered a problem using XeTeX specifying the font as Andika > >> New Basic, I guess fontconfig found the .woff file before the .ttf file > >> for this font, and XeTeX could not process the .woff file. It seems > >> better to me to have the .woff file under the documentation for the > >> font. For NRSI fonts, this would work well, as NRSI ships two files > >> > >> 1. AndikaNewBasic-webfont-example.html > >> 2. AndikaNewBasic-webfont-example.css > >> > >> that use a .woff file in the same directory at the .html and .css files > >> to show an example of the font. > > > > Please put woff files below /usr/share/fonts/woff > > > > And please file a bugreport against packages choking on the existence of > > woff files in a generally discoverable place: That is not specific to > > your package. > > > > Similar for eot fonts. > > I don't see anywhere support for these formats in fontconfig. > What did I miss? Font packages have more uses than via fontconfig. > These formats are web-native, why are they added to the outside of a > webserver DocumentRoot? Font packages are not targeted one documentroot: Each package (or user-provided) documentroot can symlink a font from a shared location. > Why should we ship these fonts when GUI apps are looking when they are > only useful for webapps ? Font packages are not exclusively for GUI apps nor web apps. > How about they are put elsewhere instead of breaking existing apps? Other font packages already use the path /usr/share/fonts/woff - so if that breaks XeLaTeX or other programs, then we have a bug already. Therefore please file the bugreport if that path cause problems, no matter if then using that path in any new package. > AFAICT this woff inclusion is only a recent trend, isn't it? Relatively, yes. > https://webapps-common.alioth.debian.org/draft/html/ch-issues.html#s-issues-fhs > says /usr/share/PACKAGE/www or /usr/lib/PACKAGE Makes sense for webapps to define a path for that specifically - they can then symlink _shared_ resources like fonts and javascript and css from respective _shared_ paths for those. > About EOT, do you realize eot is a obsolete > platform-and-browser-specific format (with DRM features) only > supported by older versions of IE? I was unaware of that. Thanks for mentioning. When that particular browser for that particular platform no longer receive any support from any Debian packages, we can stop mention /usr/share/fonts/eof as the proper shared path for such fonts. Until then it makes sense to place such fonts there rather than at other places in the system. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature