Font Forum

No, I'm not here to compare the two programs, but rather I get some warnings if/when I open my FontCreator-created font -- which has no validation errors or any other kinds of errors now -- in FontForge, just simply opening up my font in that latter software immediately gives me several warnings...

The following table(s) in the font have been ignored by FontForge
Ignoring 'DSIG' digital signature table
The glyph named Omega is mapped to U+2126,
But its name indicates it should be mapped to U+03A9.
The glyph named Tcommaaccent is mapped to U+021A,
But its name indicates it should be mapped to U+0162.
The glyph named tcommaaccent is mapped to U+021B,
But its name indicates it should be mapped to U+0163.

I do seem to have two "Omegas" for some reason -- I assumed that one was for my "Greek" character set, and the other was for math/scientific or something.

And re the T (or t) with the "commaaccent," in FontCreator once again each glyph is there twice, but for each one glyph is named "Tcommaaccent" (or lowercase tcommaccent) and the other it's named "Tcedilla" (or "tcedilla").

I have no idea what the "Ignoring 'DSIG' digital signature table" warning is in reference to (I have no idea what a digital signature table is!).

Should I be concerned about these FontForge warnings?

The DLIG (digital signature) table identifies the font as OpenType *.otf.

My fonts also have Omega duplicate. I think it's not a error

The Tcedilla may be incorrectly mapped in your font. Use the icons in the Glyph Properties dialogue to name the glyph from its code-point, or to map the code-point from its name.

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:The Tcedilla may be incorrectly mapped in your font. Use the icons in the Glyph Properties dialogue to name the glyph from its code-point, or to map the code-point from its name.

Well, that's odd, those two (or four, rather) "t" characters do seem to be mapped/named just fine, there doesn't seem to be any problem with them (that I can find) -- odd that FontForge gave me those errors, when there doesn't seem to be any (as far as I can tell).

Just out of curiosity, I thought I'd open up a "professional" font like Arial in FontForge and see if it also gave similar errors -- indeed, it does (not the same ones, but similar ones).

I guess FontForge is VERY picky! Or delusional, seeing booboos where there aren't any.

If you want to see one or two errors try doing a validation check on Times New Roman!

Actually FontCreator does give two characters the same name: 03A9 and 2126 are both named Omega.

That should never happen (we'll fix this in the next upcoming release), but FF is also wrong, as Omega should be mapped to $2126.

[Tt]commaaccent are correctly mapped.

PJMiller wrote:If you want to see one or two errors try doing a validation check on Times New Roman!

Ha ha

(Sometimes I wish this forum had "like," "ha-ha," etc. buttons like facebook does!)

Erwin Denissen wrote:Actually FontCreator does give two characters the same name: 03A9 and 2126 are both named Omega.

That should never happen (we'll fix this in the next upcoming release), but FF is also wrong, as Omega should be mapped to $2126.

[Tt]commaaccent are correctly mapped.

I don't get the omega thing either -- like I said earlier, I just figured that one was a Greek character, while the other was meant for math/scientific, but if that was the case then it's odd that FontForge sees that as an error.

And I really don't understand the warnings I got about the T/tcommaaccent, because everything about the glyphs in question seemed different from each other (and all the info in the properties for each glyph seemed correct), so I don't know why it's giving those errors in the first place.

But whatever -- that's why I use FontCreator and not FontForge for type design, I guess.

I sure hope that is not the only reason

Erwin Denissen wrote:I sure hope that is not the only reason

Well, no, it's also because you're Dutch, en ik ben ook vanuit Nederland (at least, my parents were) and it is NL where printing with moveable type all began (with my namesake, Meneer LJ Koster, in Haarlem back around 1440).

So there's two reasons.

Best reasons ever

Psymon wrote:

Erwin Denissen wrote:I sure hope that is not the only reason

Well, no, it's also because you're Dutch, en ik ben ook vanuit Nederland (at least, my parents were) and it is NL where printing with moveable type all began (with my namesake, Meneer LJ Koster, in Haarlem back around 1440).

So there's two reasons.

Actually printing with moveable type was first done in China around 1050 AD, at first with wooden characters but they were not durable so after a couple of decades they started making the characters from clay (i.e. ceramics).

Don't ruin it for us, PJ.