Re: Ext-B fonts updated

From: Asmus Freytag (asmusf@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Wed Oct 17 2001 - 19:06:34 EDT


At 02:30 PM 10/17/01 -0700, James Kass wrote:

>Richard Cook wrote:
>
> > Aha! I was looking at a bound version of 10646-2-2000-12-05 (SC2/WG2
> > N2309) in which the forms are not identical, but betray the variation
> > which causes the codepoints to be separate. It seems that the font
> > vendor has done some unification here ...
>
>OK, still have a preliminary ISO PDF {ISO/IEC 10646-2:2000/CD:1999(E)},
>and even though the code points changed, this older chart clearly shows
>the difference. So, apparently the glyph on the new chart under
>U+29FCE is incorrect.

The IRG fonts that were used to produce the PDF are not available to us
for use in our PDFs. Therefore, we - and the vendor of the TTF font that
we are using - are interested in getting errata reports on the font.

You may mail them to errata@unicode.org. Please cite specific code locations
and if you can include a (small) gif, like James did in his initial report,
or if you can compare the glyph with the IRG or ISO publication, so as to
narrow down the specific glyph and specific issue with it, that would be
most welcome.

Even with a number of errata not yet corrected, the current font is a vast
improvement over the previously used TTF font (which did not contain any
glyphs at all for several hundred positions). In the meantime, John said
it all when he wrote the the identity of the ideograph is given by its
source mapping, not its glyph in the table.

A./

PS: please don't cc' errata@unicode.org on lengthy discussions, someone
has to go in manually and clean out the irrelevant stuff from the errata
archive. Use this alias only to report errata or possibly to communicate
facts (as opposed to conjectures) that help resolve an erratum. Thanks.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Oct 23 2001 - 01:11:21 EDT