Skip to content
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

Building OTF and variable TTF from a Glyphs source with a Width axis results in incorrect naming in either static or variable fonts #1108

Closed
arrowtype opened this issue Jul 11, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@arrowtype
Copy link

arrowtype commented Jul 11, 2024

Can FontMake produce accurate static OTFs and variable TTFs, with a width axis, from a single Glyphs source?

I’ve attempted to set up a GlyphsApp source with:

  • A Weight axis
  • A Width axis
  • Instances that will output different sub-families in static fonts – one per main width location, like Familyname and Familyname Condensed, as is typical for weight+width superfamilies.
  • Instances that will produce desired instance names in a variable font, including width descriptors

Main problem:

  • If I set Glyphs data to produce accurate variable TTF instance naming, like Condensed Medium, the CFF table of OTFs gets duplicated width desriptors, like FamilynameCondensed-CondensedMedium
  • If I set Glyphs data to produce accurate CFF table naming, like FamilynameCondensed-Medium, the variable font gets incorrect instance naming, with two instances called simply Medium

FontMake (or GlyphsLib?) problems:

  1. The Localized Family Name and Localized Style Name properties of Glyphs Exports are sometimes ignored in building fonts.
  2. name table entry Custom Properties are ignored when building names in the CFF table of OTF fonts.

Versions:

  • FontMake 3.9.0 (also occurs with 3.8.1)
  • GlyphsApp 3.2.3 (3260)

I’ve made a simplified reproduction, with multiple test cases, at https://github.com/arrowtype/test-fontmake-glyphs-build-cff-naming.


Am I missing something? Thank you so much for any insights!

@arrowtype
Copy link
Author

I’ve spent some time to further research and refine this issue, and I believe it fits better into the glyphsLib repo.

I’ve filed the new issue at googlefonts/glyphsLib#1028, and I’ll close this one.

Cheers!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant