Re: Oh No! Not a new Adobe Glyph List!!!

Date: Tue Dec 31 2002 - 14:55:38 EST

  • Next message: Peter Lofting: "Re: Oh No! Not a new Adobe Glyph List!!!"

    On 12/31/2002 04:35:41 AM Kevin Brown wrote:

    >The extensive public use of the Private Use area (albeit in the Corporate
    >Use Subarea U+F6BD - U+F8FE) by the Adobe Glyph List continues
    >undiminished with version 2.0. Some of the recent almost unanimous
    >arguments on this list against William Overington's never-ending PUA
    >proposals seem pretty lame when you see the AGL's very public (and
    >apparently unchallenged) appropriation of a not-insignificant part the
    >PUA by Adobe/Apple.

    For several years I challenged Adobe on statements in the previous version
    of this document to the effect that the Corporate Use Subarea should be
    shared by vendors in a cooperative fashion. I'm glad to see that they have
    removed those statements and replaced it with this:

    "This specification does not include, imply nor assume any particular usage
    of the PUA; it merely permits to name glyphs such that the restored
    character strings include PUA code points. It is up to the producers and
    consumers of glyph names to establish an agreement on the PUA usage."

    I have no problem if they document PUA characters they have used in their
    fonts as long as they don't suggest that others *should* do the same thing.
    It's not a problem if someone else encodes data using their PUA
    assignments; what *would be* a real problem is having software that is
    limited to assuming those particular PUA semantics.

    >...simply by virtue of their presence in
    >the AGL these glyphs now appear in the default font templates for

    That's the kind of thing that would concern me, though I presume one can
    override the default in FontLab.

    >I have many, many fonts set up with uniXXXX names for glyphs that were
    >not in AGL v1.2. Now AGL v2.0 has assigned alphabetic names to many of
    >those glyphs, so the answer I REALLY need to get from Adobe is whether I
    >will need to update those uniXXXX names to AGL 2.0 names in order to
    >guarantee FULL functionality of those fonts (TrueType, PostScript - Mac
    >and Windows - and both flavours of OpenType) in Adobe applications and

    A valid concern with which I can sympathise.

    - Peter

    Peter Constable

    Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
    7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
    Tel: +1 972 708 7485

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 31 2002 - 15:30:51 EST