Re: Should there be a "UniGlyph" standard?

From: John Hudson (tiro@tiro.com)
Date: Thu Mar 07 2002 - 14:52:58 EST


At 03:30 3/7/2002, Michael Everson wrote:

>I don't use illegible names like uniXXXX. I have a whole huge list of
>user-friendly names that I use.

The final glyph names that are written to the font should be entries in the
Adobe Glyph List or uniXXXX names. There are applications, most notably
Acrobat, that need names in this form in order to be able to reconstruct
text strings from the drawn glyphs.

I agree that during font production it is easiest to work with a set of
human-friendly names, but one should make the change to AGL/uniXXXX names
before shipping the font. In FontLab 4.0, it is very easy to do this using
a Python script and a text file that maps your human-friendly names to
final glyph names.

John Hudson

Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com

... es ist ein unwiederbringliches Bild der Vergangenheit,
das mit jeder Gegenwart zu verschwinden droht, die sich
nicht in ihm gemeint erkannte.

... every image of the past that is not recognized by the
present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear
irretrievably.
                                               Walter Benjamin



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 15:00:09 EST