search

xotypeco / big_shoulders

SIL Open Font License 1.1
69 stars 3 forks source link

Instance coordinates are not multiples of 100 #9

Closed m4rc1e closed 4 years ago

m4rc1e commented 4 years ago 
    * FAIL: Instance "10pt Light" wght value is "257.0". It should be "300.0" [code: bad-coordinate]
    * FAIL: Instance "10pt Regular" wght value is "385.0". It should be "400.0" [code: bad-coordinate]
    * FAIL: Instance "10pt Medium" wght value is "450.0". It should be "500.0" [code: bad-coordinate]
    * FAIL: Instance "10pt SemiBold" wght value is "514.0". It should be "600.0" [code: bad-coordinate]
    * FAIL: Instance "10pt Bold" wght value is "642.0". It should be "700.0" [code: bad-coordinate]
    * FAIL: Instance "10pt ExtraBold" wght value is "771.0". It should be "800.0" [code: bad-coordinate]
    * FAIL: Instance "72pt Light" wght value is "257.0". It should be "300.0" [code: bad-coordinate]
    * FAIL: Instance "72pt Regular" wght value is "385.0". It should be "400.0" [code: bad-coordinate]
    * FAIL: Instance "72pt Medium" wght value is "450.0". It should be "500.0" [code: bad-coordinate]
    * FAIL: Instance "72pt SemiBold" wght value is "514.0". It should be "600.0" [code: bad-coordinate]
    * FAIL: Instance "72pt Bold" wght value is "642.0". It should be "700.0" [code: bad-coordinate]
    * FAIL: Instance "72pt ExtraBold" wght value is "771.0". It should be "800.0" [code: bad-coordinate]

All of these values need to comply with our wip spec, https://github.com/googlefonts/gf-docs/tree/master/Spec#variable-fonts.

If you delete the axis-locations customParameters in the masters, it will fix this.

xotypeco commented 4 years ago

removing it lets all the weights pass, but results in this, which is the only remaining FAIL:

* FAIL: OS/2 usWeightClass expected value for '10pt Thin' is 250 but this font has 100.

GlyphsApp users should set a Custom Parameter for 'Axis Location' in each master to ensure that the information is accurately built into variable fonts. [code: bad-value]

Result: FAIL
xotypeco commented 4 years ago

update on this, with some research: MS docs indicate that 100 is an acceptable value for usWeightClass for Thin here

so, in light of that, is this FAIL actually an update necessary to fontbakery's check for that value?

m4rc1e commented 4 years ago

removing it lets all the weights pass, but results in this, which is the only remaining FAIL:

This is a false positive. We need to fix this in fontbakery. Please ignore it.

xotypeco commented 4 years ago

argh. ok, thanks, new output files coming soon. this is the last FAIL I wasn't understanding.

xotypeco commented 4 years ago

all fonts updated, cupcakes in every fontbakery check. only FAILs still existing are complaints about a 4000UPM em in Inline.

xotypeco commented 4 years ago

this is finished as far as I can see, awaiting further comment or addition to google fonts.