Font Forum

I have ran the validation on a few projects with the expected results of glyphs with remaining issues in the new Validation Issues category.

However, as I edit the glyphs, they are not removed from the category until such time as validation is ran again.

Thank you, Mike

It's not actually a bug. Just a missing feature. After Erwin pointed out that the validator needs to be run again to update the Validation issues category, I fixed my post in the Implemented Feature Requests forum.

I did find, however, that if all glyphs with outline issues are deleted, then the Validation Issues category does update to reflect that change.

You could work around this missing feature by tagging all glyphs with validation issues, then removing the tag on fixing the issue.

Thanks, Pesala.

Tis an additional feature request then!

I had read the post about this being implemented the other day--one of the reasons for me to upgrade. In the interim, I'll tag those glyphs and work from the tag so I can see them go away so I don't lose my place. Good work-around.

MikeW wrote:I have ran the validation on a few projects with the expected results of glyphs with remaining issues in the new Validation Issues category.

However, as I edit the glyphs, they are not removed from the category until such time as validation is ran again.

Within the validation wizard one can select which problems to detect. For example, if one only checked for Redundant points, should a glyph be removed from the Validation Issues category if all Redundant points are solved, but it still contains Intersecting coordinates? I'm not sure if that would make it better, so I suggest we leave it the way it is right now.

Maybe in the future we could make the Validation Issues category to always work, even without using the Validation wizard, but that is out of scope right now.

I still hope you like this new functionality!

Sure. If all I was checking for was as per your example, all that should therefore display in the new Validation category should by glyphs with redundant point and if those redundant points are removed on a glyph then it should be cleared. It's what I would expect anyway.

But in any case, even if all errors are corrected these glyphs remain. Surely that is not ideal either as it leaves the appearance that nothing was fixed.

However, this is a big step forward and I do like it. Thanks.

MikeW wrote:Sure. If all I was checking for was as per your example, all that should therefore display in the new Validation category should by glyphs with redundant point and if those redundant points are removed on a glyph then it should be cleared. It's what I would expect anyway.

But in any case, even if all errors are corrected these glyphs remain. Surely that is not ideal either as it leaves the appearance that nothing was fixed.

However, this is a big step forward and I do like it. Thanks.

I'm glad you like it!

But then if we make the suggested improvement, the next thing you'll request is to put the glyph back into the category as soon as you change the outline so it again has redundant points, right

(1) Validation finds redundant points on a single glyph.
(2) Glyph is placed in the new Validation error category.
(3) Glyph is edited to remove redundant points.
(4) Glyph is automatically removed from Validation error category.
(5) Subsequent editing on this glyph produces redundant points (incredibly unlikely, but this is your scenario...)
(6) Validation is reran.
(7) Glyph is placed again in Validation error category.

Yes, that is exactly what I expect.

What is it you expect?

If it worked the way you describe, we didn't even need to run the validation wizard (except for automatically fixing the detected issues).

Maybe version 11 will be able to do it, but right now I think we've done exactly what was requested, and you seemed to be happy with it:

Font validation revisited

MikeW wrote:That too was a thought I had. And I hadn't thought through a multiple tagging problem. Having the category is a fantastic solution.

Rerunning the validation is not an issue to me. Thanks, Erwin.

Mike

No, it wouldn't work that way--I don't know where "live validation" came from.

Look, Erwin. I am happy. And thank you for quoting me from the request thread. You should have read through to the end of the quoted request thread.

When I started this particular thread, it was because of Pesala's statement at the end of the thread wherein he wrote: "As the glyphs are fixed, they will disappear from the filtered list."

That is why this thread was created.

Bottom line is we all see room for improvements, and are happy with this intermediate solution