Re: What's the difference between AHEM____.TTF and ahem3.ttf ?

On 07/26/2016 04:21 PM, Gérard Talbot wrote:
> Le 2016-07-26 16:02, fantasai a écrit :
>> On 03/24/2016 01:26 PM, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Gérard Talbot
>>> <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org> wrote:
>>>> http://test.csswg.org/source/fonts/ahem/
>>>> AHEM____.TTF      2014-05-30 00:04   12K
>>>>
>>>> http://test.csswg.org/source/fonts/
>>>> ahem3.ttf         2014-05-30 00:04   14K
>>>>
>>>> What is the adequate usage for ahem3.ttf ?
>>>>
>>>> In what way is ahem3.ttf different (or better) from (than) AHEM____.TTF ?
>>>
>>> I asked this question last November in
>>> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2015Nov/0007.html>,
>>> which covered a bit of background about what the differences are, and
>>> the difference in licenses. I seem to remember trying to resolve this
>>> back in 2010, but I have no idea how. Sadly, nobody seems to know
>>> anymore…
>>
>> Okay, I called up Arron Eicholz. Apparently this is a replacement
>> of the old Ahem font, that includes some glyphs above the ASCII
>> range
>
> Which glyphs above the ASCII range ?

On 07/26/2016 04:58 PM, Sergey Malkin wrote:
>
> For Ahem3 I added bunch of different space characters, all with appropriate widths. Here is full list:
>
> 	2002 - en-space
> 	2003 - em-space
> 	2004 - 3-per-em space
> 	2005 - 4-per-em space
> 	2006 - six-per-em space
> 	2009 - thin space
> 	200A - hair space
> 	200B - zero-width space
> 	200C - zero-width non-joiner
> 	200D - zero-width joiner
> 	3000 - ideographic space
> 	FEFF - zero-width non-breaking space
>
> Over the years I also created few Ahem variants for internal testing,
> e.g. with visible non-breaking space, large line height, with large
> ascent only, or large descent only. You can have them in mind if you
> need more standard fonts for testing.

~fantasai