[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Freefont-bugs] New glyphs are unixxxx while other glyphs are uniXXX
From: |
Steve White |
Subject: |
Re: [Freefont-bugs] New glyphs are unixxxx while other glyphs are uniXXXX. |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:15:00 +0200 |
Hi
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:28 PM, BobH <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 2013-06-25 at 9:12 you wrote:
>
> I've experimented with this, and now I think I spoke too soon.
> But maybe I don't understand your suggestion.
>
> The glyphs *must* have unique names.
>
> Why? (only slightly rhetorical)
>
I mixed things up there. Internally references are made by glyph ID,
so I know of no structural reason why they must be unique.
FontForge correctly insists on uniqueness when names are being set.
I'm talking about font generation by FontForge.
I find no way to *remove* the glyph names.
Only ways to replace them with other sets of glyph names.
Am I missing something?
> If they *must* have names, then those names are being used by one or more
> processes (human and/or machine) and, if that is true then the names need to
> conform to whatever such processes require. But you have claimed you don't
> need to conform to at least one such machine process (PDF text copy),
Our conformance to this broken idea would not unbreak it.
It might serve to prolong it, but I think that is detrimental to the
public good.
> so I'm
> trying to understand what process(es) you believe do require names.
>
?? Very few. Have you misunderstood me.
As I wrote in the posting before last, for the primary purpose of
display, the names are superfluous.
The only process I even know of that used glyph names and had a
legitimate intent was the PDF copying one. But again, I regard that
as broken and defunct.
> Once one knows what processes are required, only then can one decide what
> the name requirements are, if any.
>
> My problem with this is: I do not approve of the Adobe names.
>
> Can you give examples of what names (from the Adobe Glyph List For New
> fonts) you find objectionable and why they are so?
>
> Or is it the "uni" and "u" names (used for everything not in the aglfn) that
> you don't like?
>
It's the AGLFN names I don't like. They amount to a loss of
information, besides being ugly.
There are a few AGL names that are just wrong (and there are also a
few Unicode names that are just wrong too). These things happen. To
be honest, more names in FreeFont are just wrong, than either the AGL
or Unicode. But they're *our* names, and have other advantages too
(brevity, etc). But again, the functioning of outside code must not
depend on glyph names.
Keep me thinking, Bob!
- [Freefont-bugs] New glyphs are unixxxx while other glyphs are uniXXXX., Tae Wong, 2013/06/21
- Re: [Freefont-bugs] New glyphs are unixxxx while other glyphs are uniXXXX., Steve White, 2013/06/21
- Re: [Freefont-bugs] New glyphs are unixxxx while other glyphs are uniXXXX., BobH, 2013/06/21
- Re: [Freefont-bugs] New glyphs are unixxxx while other glyphs are uniXXXX., BobH, 2013/06/21
- Re: [Freefont-bugs] New glyphs are unixxxx while other glyphs are uniXXXX., Denis Jacquerye, 2013/06/22
- Re: [Freefont-bugs] New glyphs are unixxxx while other glyphs are uniXXXX., Steve White, 2013/06/22
- Re: [Freefont-bugs] New glyphs are unixxxx while other glyphs are uniXXXX., BobH, 2013/06/23
- Re: [Freefont-bugs] New glyphs are unixxxx while other glyphs are uniXXXX., Steve White, 2013/06/24
- Re: [Freefont-bugs] New glyphs are unixxxx while other glyphs are uniXXXX., Steve White, 2013/06/25
- Re: [Freefont-bugs] New glyphs are unixxxx while other glyphs are uniXXXX., BobH, 2013/06/25
- Re: [Freefont-bugs] New glyphs are unixxxx while other glyphs are uniXXXX.,
Steve White <=
- Re: [Freefont-bugs] New glyphs are unixxxx while other glyphs are uniXXXX., BobH, 2013/06/26
- Re: [Freefont-bugs] New glyphs are unixxxx while other glyphs are uniXXXX., Steve White, 2013/06/27