RE: [OpenType] Should there be a "UniGlyph" standard?

From: Roozbeh Pournader (roozbeh@sharif.edu)
Date: Thu Mar 07 2002 - 11:29:02 EST


On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Thomas Phinney wrote:

> >I know of that, but I believe that when a glyph is in Adobe Glyph List,
> >one MUST use that name, and a uniXXXX one. That's how I read the 'Unicode
> >and Glyph Names' document. (Would someone inside Adobe explain?)
>
> Your use of the word "and" confuses me.

Oops, I meant "and not a uniXXXX one". Sorry. (I need to sleep longer, I
know.)

> For glyph names in the AGL, you can use either the AGL name, or the
> uniXXXX name.

This is something I am not sure about. As I read the document, you must
use the AGL name.

> In a very few cases, a glyph in the AGL is listed as potentially being
> double-mapped, and one could use the AGL name as well as one of the two
> uniXXXX names, if one wanted two separate glyphs. Or one could use two
> uniXXXX names.

Yes, I know that.

> There are some older versions of Adobe apps that would only recognize
> the AGL name, but anything from the last several years should be able to
> use either.

This is very useful information. Any pointers to more?

roozbeh



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 11:29:42 EST