From: Peter Lofting (email@example.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
(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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 31 2002 - 16:57:22 EST