Closed anthrotype closed 2 years ago
it's valid for fonts to have glyphs with zero advance width, e.g. combining marks
I stumbled on this while running maximum_color on a yet-to-be-published color font project, after exporting from Glyphs.app as an OT-SVG.
maximum_color
I wonder why the assertion was put that to begin with. Is it because when width is 0, a bitmap CBDT glyph would otherwise completely disappear (https://github.com/googlefonts/nanoemoji/issues/402)?
Is it because when width is 0, a bitmap CBDT glyph would otherwise completely disappear
I think this was true but iirc should no longer be. In any case, definitely a bad assert, good catch.
it's valid for fonts to have glyphs with zero advance width, e.g. combining marks
I stumbled on this while running
maximum_color
on a yet-to-be-published color font project, after exporting from Glyphs.app as an OT-SVG.I wonder why the assertion was put that to begin with. Is it because when width is 0, a bitmap CBDT glyph would otherwise completely disappear (https://github.com/googlefonts/nanoemoji/issues/402)?