Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461617
Caolan McNamara caolanm@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |caolanm@redhat.com Component|sazanami-fonts |openoffice.org Version|10 |rawhide AssignedTo|tagoh@redhat.com |caolanm@redhat.com
--- Comment #15 from Caolan McNamara caolanm@redhat.com 2009-09-30 07:46:47 EDT --- I'm now back to very suspicious about OOo itself. Both fontforge and ttx are preferring the type 2 coverage format when saving this font as its more compact in this case that the original fonts type 1 coverage table. Presuming that both ttx and fontforge are re-encoding as type 2 correctly then it would be OOo that's handling them incorrectly.
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/CHAPTER2.htm has "Coverage Index (GlyphID) = StartCoverageIndex + GlyphID - Start GlyphID" which *plausibly* is somewhere we're going wrong.