The quoting in the previous message wasn't very good, and it may not have
been clear who wrote what. John Fiscella wrote:
>I would go further than that: if the font contains *any* properly named
>composite glyph, that it should be used in place of a base glyph +
>combining mark glyph representing normalized text, *even if the composite
>glyph is not encoded in Unicode/10646*. Such is the beauty of a parseable
>standard glyph naming scheme.
To which I replied:
There are plenty of TrueType fonts -- including many Asian fonts -- with
version 3.0 'post' tables that do not contain glyph names.
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC firstname.lastname@example.org
When the pages of books fall in fiery scraps
Onto smashed leaves and twisted metal,
The tree of good and evil is stripped bare.
- Czeslaw Milosz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed May 29 2002 - 14:31:44 EDT