Re: ct, fj and blackletter ligatures

From: Thomas Lotze (thomas.lotze@uni-jena.de)
Date: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 12:55:27 EST

  • Next message: Joseph Boyle: "RE: Names for UTF-8 with and without BOM"

    On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 17:21:06 +0000
    jameskass@att.net wrote:

    > This is possible because, other than the cmap
    > (character-to-glyph mapping) table, all of the other tables in
    > the font use a glyph index [...] internally.
    >
    > Such glyphs, since they can't be directly called, are only accessible
    > via so-called "smart font" technology, like OpenType, AAT, and
    > Graphite.

    How does this compare to unmapped glyphs in Type1 fonts, which can be
    made accessible by re-encoding the font? Are they hidden at a deeper
    level, or is it essentially the same thing? Do they get glyph names so a
    program that can parse the font file can identify and use them even
    though they are not mapped?

    Cheers, Thomas 

    -- 
Thomas Lotze
thomas.lotze@gmx.net                      http://www.thomas-lotze.de/

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 13:22:39 EST