[Fontinst] Re: Bug in fontinstversion{1.927}

Peter Dyballa Peter_Dyballa at Web.DE
Wed Jan 26 17:29:18 CET 2005

Am 26.01.2005 um 12:16 schrieb Lars Hellström:

>> 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.

What is LICR? Least Insignificant Carriage Return?

>> 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.

It is _obviously_ bad, but doing so it might give an easy rule to not 
add this glyph name to the ever increasing set of 8p.etx and 8p.mtx -- 
which brings me to a (not so nice?) question: \installfont can work 
with more than one MTX file, can \transformfont do the same? It would 
be nice having a rather stable 8p.etx file that corresponds to 8p.enc, 
and another auxiliary ETX file with all those extra glyph names ...

>> 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?

It's obviously this: only one glyph (shape) and one character (slot) 
name where two would be appropriate -- a design flaw of this font!

Since I fetched on Monday fontinst 2 I'll switch to this before doing 
any further experiments.

Are new releases advertised on this list?



 From error to error, one discovers the entire truth.

More information about the fontinst mailing list