From: John Hudson (tiro@tiro.com)
Date: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 13:33:10 EST
At 10:55 11/2/2002, Thomas Lotze wrote:
>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?
Unencoded glyphs in OpenType fonts (which use the TrueType sfnt table
structure but may contain either TrueType or PostScript outlines) have no
entries in the cmap table. It is possible to hack a font and add cmap table
entries for such glyphs, so there is a parallel to re-encoding a Type 1 font.
Yes, variant glyphs will have glyph names (unless, e.g. a format 3 'post'
table is used, in which case no glyphs have names), and these can be
parsed. For example, Adobe InDesign parses the names of some standard
ligatures (ff fi fl ffi ffl) regardless of font format, so is able to do
ligature substitutions for these without relying on glyph substitution
lookups in the font. For information about glyph naming and its
relationship to Unicode, see
http://partners.adobe.com/asn/developer/typeforum/unicodegn.html
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com
It is necessary that by all means and cunning,
the cursed owners of books should be persuaded
to make them available to us, either by argument
or by force. - Michael Apostolis, 1467
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 15:00:08 EST