Date: Sun Mar 18 2007 - 21:04:44 CST
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:41:23 -0700
Ken Lunde <email@example.com> wrote:
> > But the CIDs listed in comments 5-7 are difficult to classify.
> > They refers multiple non-Adobe documents (e.g. FM-R codechart
> > and JIS X 0213:2004, they are mutually incompatible), so IVSes
> > for these CIDs cannot be associated with a unique glyphic subset.
> > Thus I think they are not fitting to IVD purpose. How do you
> > think?
> Given the nature of fonts, and the fact that no two designs are the
> same, the code points indicated by the CMap files (and thus the
> "cid2code.txt" file) must be referenced against original materials,
> such as Fujitsu's FM-R character set and printed JIS standards.
> Kozuka Minch (and Kozuka Gothic) are typeface instances. Still, many
> aspects of glyph design are typeface-independent, such as stroke
> structure and composition. We feel that the Kozuka Mincho is a very
> close rendition of JIS90, which also included JIS2004 forms. However,
> specifying such forms, such as JIS2004, is beyond the scope of the
> Adobe-Japan1 IVD submission. Instead, it properly belongs in a much-
> needed revision of Adobe Tech Note #5078.
Your answer is very near of what I expected. So please let
me ask again. I'm not asking the difference of a character's
form in FM-R charset and that in printed JIS2004. I'm asking
which the specification the CID is refering. How these
specification define the forms are out of my scope.
But, I'm afraid that my question is totally wrong from the
beginning. Does "beyond of the scope of the Adobe-Japan1 IVD
submission" means following logic?
Adobe-Japan1 IVD proposal refers to Adobe Tech Note #5078,
but it does not mean Adobe-Japan1 IVD is a specification
including the whole information of Adobe Tech Note #5078.
For example, Giving CID+7963 (it was originally introduced
for FM-R form, but now it is used for JIS2004 form -
in Adobe Tech Note #5078 context) by Adobe-Japan1 IVD can
specify an abstract ideographic-variant aspect (which is
exemplified by Kozuka Mincho glyph instance at CID+7963)
and tell nothing about whether its form is in FM-R form
nor in JIS2004 form nor anything else. The specification
telling about its form is Adobe Tech Notes #5078, not
> > Excuse me, please let me explain in detail. I think, the forms
> > of APGS were defined by Apple, but the forms of APGS-compatible
> > glyphs in Adobe-Japan1-5 (the glyphs introduced to support Mac
> > OS X 10.2 glyph set) were defined by Adobe, and out of the hands
> > of Apple. If the font designers want to know the detailed forms
> > of these glyphs, they must ask Apple for the specification (as
> > we need JIS X 0213:2004 to know the detailed forms of glyphs for
> > JIS2004)?
> The Adobe-Japan1-6 character collection specification (Adobe Tech
> Note #5078) shows Kozuka Mincho glyphs. If you want to know the
> source glyphs for APGS glyphs, only Apple has the complete set of
> information. After all, the "A" or "APGS" stands for Apple.
Umm, please let me summarize my understanding in lengthy text.
I guess you tell that APGS-compatiblity should be handled in
the same manner with JIS90-compatibility - aslike:
The earliest revision of Adobe Tech Note #5078 was printed
by Heisei Mincho typeface, it was real JIS90 exemplification
glyphs and compatibility (forced to say) was checked JSA FDPC.
Current Adobe Tech Note #5078 is printed by Kozuka Mincho,
its JIS90 compatibility (to Heisei Mincho typeface) is intended,
expected, but there is difference in detailed design.
As a result, to design JIS90 compatible glyph, the reference
should be JIS X 0208-1990 and original JSA FDPC Heisei Mincho,
Kozuka Mincho is not the best reference.
The Adobe Tech Note #5146 (the initial specification of
Adobe-Japan1-5) was printed by Hiragino Mincho, the real
APGS typeface. The compatibility from Hiragino Mincho to
Kozuka Mincho (the glyphs in Adobe-Japan1-5 delta and
without explicit references) is intended, expected, but
there is difference in detailed design. As a result, to
design APGS compatible glyph, the reference should be
any documents by Apple (if there's) or Hiragino Mincho
typeface (bundled to Mac OS X 10.2), Kozuka Mincho is not
the best reference.
Am I understanding correctly?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 18 2007 - 21:08:34 CST