[Fontinst] Re: Bug in fontinstversion{1.927}

Lars Hellström Lars.Hellstrom at math.umu.se
Wed Jan 26 12:16:55 CET 2005

At 20.21 +0100 2005-01-21, Peter Dyballa wrote:
>It looks as it could be easy to find all those glyph names that deviate
>from fontinst's naming scheme: the 8p mapping given to ttf2pt1 makes it
>dump an excerpt of the font. Since the map file uses Unicode positions
>the 8p encoded PostScript font contains the glyphs at the right
>positions -- with sometimes different names. The corresponding AFM file
>now has the position (slot number) and the deviating name. With some
>script science it'll be possible to augment both 8p.etx and 8p.mtx
>automatically with Unicode glyph names -- the problem (for me) only is:
>to which Unicode glyphs

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a "Unicode glyph", there are
only "Unicode characters". The correspondences between Unicode characters
and glyphs are often one-to-many, but there are also cases of many-to-one,
so establishing such correspondences is science rather than technology.

>do the glyphs in OT1, T1,

The "encoding draft specifications" in cover these two, as well as OMX.
Furthermore I have a partial omsdraft.etx that I used to test some new
features in v1.928.

>TS1, and expert encoding 8j correspond?

8j? The ExpertEncoding is usually called 8x.

>8j seems to be no problem since the Adobe Glyph
>List provides a mapping of PostScript glyph names to Unicode slots. But
>these TeX encodings: is there some easy to understand mapping of

I'd label this as a glyphic variation on `acute'.


No, that doesn't seem to be in the Unicode standard, but it could be a mere
glyphic variation on `emdash'. Does anyone know where and how it is used?

>hyphendblchar, hyphendbl,

Glyphic variations on `hyphen'. (Also cf. `hyphenchar'.)

>tieaccentlowercase, newtie ... to Unicode?

Those two ought to be somewhere (or be glyphic variations on something) in
Unicode. As I recall it, the `newtie' is the same as the ordinary `tie',
but the command for it is supposed to be used in a different position.

Perhaps some German can tell us? I haven't seen any mention of these things
being used anywhere else than there.

>Can Dominique Unruh's ucs.sty be useful?

That could give you the map Unicode -> LICR, but that's not all there is to
font encodings.

>ttf2pt1 has a nice side-effect in augmenting the glyph names' base:

Or maybe not so nice...   Ad hoc renaming is often a bad thing.

>Glyph 1241 name starts with a digit (1661), changing to _b_1241
>Glyph 1242 name starts with a digit (1667), changing to _b_1242

That's a curious rule. Postscript has not rule against names beginning with
digits (especially not literate names, which is all one uses with fonts).

>Glyph 551 has the same name as 321: (Omega), changing to _d_551
>Glyph 554 has the same name as 301: (Delta), changing to _d_554

Here I wonder: Are these glyphs graphically distinct, or is it really the
same glyph that for some reason appears twice? (There seems to be both a
Greek and a Cyrillic Omega in Unicode.) In the latter case, is that clear
in the TTF?

Lars Hellström

More information about the fontinst mailing list