From: James Kass (thunder-bird@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Nov 13 2006 - 17:41:53 CST
John H. Jenkins wrote,
>Actually, despite the wording of the TrueType spec on this point (even
>our own version), we at Apple tend to consider it an error for a font
>to have two glyphs with the same PS name, even ".notdef". So Font
>Book isn't the only software we produce which thinks this is a Bad
>Thing.
In the three Code200x fonts, there are 14755 un-mapped (no Unicode value),
unprintable glyphs. (There are more than 14755 un-mapped glyphs, but
they are printable presentation forms which have been assigned valid PS
names.)
What purpose is served by assigning printer names to such unprintable
glyphs?
Does Apple/Adobe/Microsoft have any recommendation for naming such
glyphs other than the ".notdef" for "not defined" called for by the specs?
Would ".notdef.5055675" meet the specification for one of these glyphs,
for instance? Or would this mean that other OS validators would then
fail to pass the font?
If there are no inaccuracies in my (and many other developers') post
tables, does Apple recommend that we correct certain accuracies?
Best regards,
James Kass
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 13 2006 - 17:43:11 CST