-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
URW Nimbus font issue: Cyrillic small letter te
(afii10084) has wrong glyph in italic and bold Italic style
#28
Comments
Please, report this issue directly to (URW++) company. IIRC, Artifex only repackages the fonts & releases them, but they do not create / maintain them. If you report it directly to (URW++), you have much bigger chance of this issue actually getting fixed.... :) |
Do you have a link to URW++, preferably to their bug tracking system? |
The (URW++) company does not exist anymore. URW Type Foundry GmbH at https://www.urwtype.com/ is apparently now holding the assets of the former company, and has some of the same team. They can be contacted at |
I will make some enquiries to see where we (Artifex) stand wrt to URW++. |
Wow, I didn't know that! :-O Sorry for the confusion! |
It's a bit less dramatic than it sounds. URW++ were bought out by Global Graphics PLC and have been operating as a Global Graphics subsidiary for about 4 years. At present, Global are in the advanced stages of selling the URW++ business to Monotype. So "URW++" still exists, it's just not a stand alone business entity any more. |
Thanks for the correction, I mixed it up. Accorring to Wikipedia, In 1995 the original URW company ("Unternehmensberatung Rubow Weber GmbH") ceased to exist, and a new company, URW++ was founded. URW++ was sold to Global Graphics plc in 2016 and renamed URW Type Foundry GmbH in 2018.
Wasn't aware of this. (Everything inside me screams "Noooooooo"!) |
For the record here, we got updated font files for this issue from URW++, and they look okay to me: I asked the original reporter on launchpad if they could double check the fix, but no response as yet. Will give it a few more days. |
Hi @chris-liddell since you seem to have the right contacts at URW to make things happen, maybe you could look into the following as well. I tried to open an issue at https://github.com/ArtifexSoftware/ghostpdl but seemingly there is no way to open an issue in that repository which is why I am asking here. I understand that the fonts listed below had been released earlier by URW++ for free distribution with the APFL-licensed GhostPCL. It would be tremendously valuable if these could also be released in the same formats and under the same licenses as the fonts in the Core 35. Some of these might be outdated because the Core 35 Font contain never versions with similar names, but others (e.g., U001) are entirely missing in the Core 35 Fonts.
Looks like in this commit http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=ghostpdl.git;a=commit;h=6f1da3c990ab7de4c3218bf8beff21f19449b284 e.g, U001 was renamed to URWClassicSans. Thanks for looking into it! |
In a word, "No". We have asked several times (even offered to pay) but no dice. What you are asking about is the PCL5 font set and that's different fonts and different glyph collections and different metrics (although, as you imply, there is overlap) compared to the Postscript/PDF "core 35" font set. They are not "outdated", they are intentionally different to satisfy the different requirements. I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect the reason is that the PCL5 font set still represents a strong revenue stream for URW++ (in a way the Postscript set was never likely to be) so they are unwilling to move to a more permissive license that might (even potentially) risk that revenue. |
Too bad. I doubt it would even be noticeable in the balance sheet of Monotype. Anyway, thanks for checking @chris-liddell. |
Update from, and credit to, URW++. See: #28
Fixed: |
Update from URW++ (2020/05/26). See: ArtifexSoftware/urw-base35-fonts#28 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fonts-urw-base35/+bug/1871377 The glyph outline was much too wide, as well as the advance width being too large. Note: a number of test files show tiny rounding differences - this is normal when these fonts get regenerated.
See #35 for similar issues with other glyphs. |
Bug 1871377 reported to Ubuntu:
See screen shots and more info in the files and comments on the Ubuntu bug report.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: