Re: Streamlining fontconfig scanning

We don't need more config.  We have enough ideas to get the performance
boost while handling bad fonts if we decide to.  But I agree with Keith, I
think we should just ship without blanks and deal with repercussions after.

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <
[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 16:42:53 -0400, Keith Packard wrote:
>
> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Should the extra validation be controlled by some kind of config
> >> option?
> >
> > One could imagine a separate tool which would scan a font and display
> > inconsistencies. We could encourage font packagers to use that tool
> > when building packages so that distributions would at least be able
> > to tell if there were broken fonts and perhaps provide a way to
> > report bugs upstream.
>
> And for those that remain unfixed, how about segregating them in a
> separate directory, using an extra attribute on the <dir> directive:
>
>     <dir assume_well_formed="yes|no">
>
> where the “assume_well_formed” directive defaults to “no” if omitted.
> That way the known-good fonts can be put in their own directories with
> assume_well_formed="yes", and we get the speedup from bypassing the
> extra checks on them, at least.
> _______________________________________________
> Fontconfig mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig
>



-- 
behdad
http://behdad.org/

_______________________________________________
Fontconfig mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig