Jason Campbell : I hope this answers your question on the validity of using one rasterer to find problems with the another.
As part of the effort leading up to Font Validator 2.0, I tested all the fonts I have in my processsion on both 2.0 and 1.0, at just size 10, for B/W rendering (the full run is about 70 sizes from 4 to 126, and B/W + gray + subpixel rendering, and obviously will take about 200x as long) . That's ~2000 fonts on Fedora, ~700 for Mac OS X, ~2000 mostly old and rather buggy CJK fonts of my private collection, and I have always been comparing the results for the ~300 fonts shipped with windows 8.1. So that's about 5000 fonts used for testing. And I posted the URL for the libre font part.
I reckon nobody is going to download a file to see if his/her font is listed in the flaws found... So let's simply name the fonts - it is divided into 1.0 (the older binary only Font Validator) and 2.0, and texlive vs non-texlive. Of course the hope is that some of the flaws will get fixed.
I think for most part Font Validator 2.0 tries to be less buggy, so if your font is in the 1.0 list but not in the 2.0 list (or a flaw appears in the 1.0 list but not 2.0), and you cannot figure out why 1.0 complains, it probably is just 1.0 being buggy; but I'd certainly like to hear otherwise, or that 2.0 did not detect a genuine flaw.
The actual details, i.e. which glyph at what offset has what kind of problems, are up at:
http://htl10.users.sourceforge.net/tmp/FontVal-test-results-2016July/
dotnet/mono binary (-bin.zip) and mac os binary (dmg) up at [1], and please do make a donation [2] if you find this useful.
[1] https://sourceforge.net/projects/hp-pxl-jetready/files/Microsoft%20Font%20Validator/
[2] https://sourceforge.net/p/hp-pxl-jetready/donate/
As part of the effort leading up to Font Validator 2.0, I tested all the fonts I have in my processsion on both 2.0 and 1.0, at just size 10, for B/W rendering (the full run is about 70 sizes from 4 to 126, and B/W + gray + subpixel rendering, and obviously will take about 200x as long) . That's ~2000 fonts on Fedora, ~700 for Mac OS X, ~2000 mostly old and rather buggy CJK fonts of my private collection, and I have always been comparing the results for the ~300 fonts shipped with windows 8.1. So that's about 5000 fonts used for testing. And I posted the URL for the libre font part.
I reckon nobody is going to download a file to see if his/her font is listed in the flaws found... So let's simply name the fonts - it is divided into 1.0 (the older binary only Font Validator) and 2.0, and texlive vs non-texlive. Of course the hope is that some of the flaws will get fixed.
I think for most part Font Validator 2.0 tries to be less buggy, so if your font is in the 1.0 list but not in the 2.0 list (or a flaw appears in the 1.0 list but not 2.0), and you cannot figure out why 1.0 complains, it probably is just 1.0 being buggy; but I'd certainly like to hear otherwise, or that 2.0 did not detect a genuine flaw.
The actual details, i.e. which glyph at what offset has what kind of problems, are up at:
http://htl10.users.sourceforge.net/tmp/FontVal-test-results-2016July/
dotnet/mono binary (-bin.zip) and mac os binary (dmg) up at [1], and please do make a donation [2] if you find this useful.
[1] https://sourceforge.net/projects/hp-pxl-jetready/files/Microsoft%20Font%20Validator/
[2] https://sourceforge.net/p/hp-pxl-jetready/donate/