Hi Georg, Eric,
I’m wondering whether something changed with the EOT export in the last official release? I had to update some files today and discovered that EOT export in 2.4 is functional, but 2.4.1+ exports from the very same source files are broken. Any thoughts on what may be causing this? I can send files over if you would like to have a look?
Thanks!
Looking into this further with OTM… when comparing TTF fonts generated from 2.4 and 2.4.1, I can see there is an additional name table entry generated in v2.4.1. All other font data is the same. Image of new entry —
Is there anyway to remove / stop this entry being generated as I guess this is the source of the problem?
IDs 256 and above are used for things like stylistic set names. There does not happen to be a Name: Medium in the notes of any of the ssXX features?
That’s good to know. Strangely, without any feature ‘NAME:’ definitions in the latest cutting edge version (1007), I am getting an ID256 in the table. Not sure why that would happen.
Anyhow, the EOT issue is resolved. I ran an update on our Windows Machine and the EOTs are suddenly now fully functional from all versions of Glyphs. Very odd. I hate EOT.
Thanks!
Are you sure you still need EOT?
Personally, I would be happy to stop EOT support but our brand project customers often demand EOT to ensure full web coverage, despite very-very-low IE user figures. We occasionally have requests from in-house tech-teams for SVG too!!
I agree with Phil; EOT still needs to be supported for big company projects.
Agree! These two formats never seems to go away. Clients asks for them and after trying to convince them they don’t need it, they still insist.
