From: Peter Lofting (lofting@apple.com)
Date: Tue Dec 31 2002 - 16:22:30 EST
At 9:05 PM +1030 12/31/02, Kevin Brown wrote:
>OK, but what I can't find in the document is a clear statement regarding
>what exactly an AGL glyph name achieves that a generic uniXXXX name
>doesn't - apart from the dubious benefits of human readability.
The main reasons to have short human-readable glyphnames are:
(1) to have name identifiers for un-encoded glyphs.
e.g. A.swash1 A.swash2 A.smallcap A.initialcap A.endflourish
A_period.swash
(2) to use these names in writing shaping behaviour rules. This
applies to both OpenType and AAT (MIF) shaping rules.
Writing glyph substitution/transformation algebra is much easier if
the string is short, unbroken, and readable/recognizable. Unicode
names don't fulfil all these criteria and the uniXXXX format is
opaque, which prevents debugging and re-use of the shaping rule
libraries.
Peter Lofting
Apple Fonts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 31 2002 - 16:57:22 EST