Possible bug? head table version number seemingly being misread #4213

arrowtype · 2023-07-24T19:05:09Z

arrowtype
Jul 24, 2023

This may be related to #2403, but I’m not sure.

When I run check com.google.fonts/check/font_version, I receive the following FAIL message:

 >> com.google.fonts/check/font_version
    Checking font version fields (head and name table).
    with fonts__trial/ArrowType-NameSans-v011-Trial/AT-NameSans-Trial/AT-NameSansVariable.Trial.ttf


     FAIL head version is "1.17900" while name version string                   
          (for platform 3, encoding 1) is "Version 0.11, Build 1.179            
          [eee8b8f564]". [code: mismatch]                                       


    Result: FAIL

However, if I inspect those two tables using TTX, they appear to match exactly:

  <head>
    <!-- skipping other fields -->
    <fontRevision value="1.179"/>
    <!-- skipping other fields -->
  </head>

  <name>
    <!-- skipping other fields -->
    <namerecord nameID="5" platformID="3" platEncID="1" langID="0x409">
      Version 0.11, Build 1.179 [eee8b8f564]
    </namerecord>
    <!-- skipping other fields -->
  </name>

I am using FontBakery version 0.8.13.

What might be causing this?

Thanks for any info!

Btw, I can share the slightly limited "trial" font as a binary to test against, if it’s useful:

AT-NameSans-Trial.zip

As a note, this is the trial version of a retail font, so folks are free to use it for testing and evaluation (include for evaluating a FontBakery check like this one), but it can’t be used for published logos and graphic design, etc ... please see the included license for details. The trial font excludes some characters and is named to try to keep this clear to potential users.

For what it’s worth, the non-trial version exhibits similarly unexpected behavior in FontBakery.

Thanks for any eyes on this!

felipesanches · 2023-07-24T19:11:39Z

felipesanches
Jul 24, 2023
Maintainer

"Version 0.11, Build 1.179 [eee8b8f564]" is not version="1.179", even though I can see that you're using the build number as numerically equivalent to version number. That's the aspect of it that is confusing the check.

2 replies

arrowtype Jul 24, 2023
Author

Ohh, I see. Thanks for helping me understand what the check was really saying.

It does still seem non-ideal that it misreports the number in the HEAD table (FAIL head version is "1.17900"), as that confused me about where the problem was.

Maybe it might be clearer as something like:

Head version is "1.179" so "Version 1.179" is expected in the name version string (for platform 3, encoding 1)

Anyway, thanks again for helping me to better understand this!

felipesanches Jul 24, 2023
Maintainer

yeah, I think I can improve it that way

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Possible bug? head table version number seemingly being misread #4213

{{title}}

{{editor}}'s edit

{{editor}}'s edit

Replies: 1 comment 2 replies

{{title}}

{{title}}

{{title}}

Select a reply

Possible bug? head table version number seemingly being misread #4213

arrowtype Jul 24, 2023

Replies: 1 comment · 2 replies

felipesanches Jul 24, 2023 Maintainer

arrowtype Jul 24, 2023 Author

felipesanches Jul 24, 2023 Maintainer

arrowtype
Jul 24, 2023

Replies: 1 comment 2 replies

felipesanches
Jul 24, 2023
Maintainer

arrowtype Jul 24, 2023
Author

felipesanches Jul 24, 2023
Maintainer