You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In a local test git repository, normalize a font with psfnormalize, then git commit, then normalize the already normalized font with ufonormalizer. You would expect no changes a git diff will show plenty of changes.
Including trivial ones such as (psfnormalize)
<!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple Computer//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd">
vs. (ufonormalizer)
<!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd">
I think both tools should either produce 100% the same "normalization", or else it is not a "normalization". Maybe having 2 such tools just complicates matters and one should be retired?
ufonormalizer and psfnormalize produce different results.
This kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
To reproduce:
In a local test git repository, normalize a font with
psfnormalize
, thengit commit
, then normalize the already normalized font withufonormalizer
. You would expect no changes agit diff
will show plenty of changes.Including trivial ones such as (
psfnormalize
)vs. (
ufonormalizer
)I think both tools should either produce 100% the same "normalization", or else it is not a "normalization". Maybe having 2 such tools just complicates matters and one should be retired?
Reference:
unified-font-object/ufoNormalizer#70
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: