Abraham wrote:
> I agree. I guess I was wondering what the cons are of making the glyphs
> within the font itself use their unique glyph identifiers for their
names
> rather than in an external file? Is there any reason not to do that?
Seems
> to me to reduce the effort. After all, the unicode value is already part
of
> the glyph (in their code points). What think ye?
We're following the recommendations Adobe set out in their Adobe Glyph
List for New Fonts (AGLFN, web site here:
http://sourceforge.net/adobe/aglfn/wiki/Home/), which states that glyphs
in the Private Use Area are recommended to use glyph names based on their
Unicode code points. As I understand it (which is incompletely, no doubt),
many applications rely on the names found in the AGL to determine how to
handle font subsets in EPS and PDF files, and to ensure maximum
compatibility with applications like Acrobat, Illustrator and InDesign,
among others, it is desirable to use these glyph names.
Daniel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steinberg Media Technologies GmbH, Frankenstrasse 18b, D-20097 Hamburg, Germany
Phone: +49 (40) 21035-0 | Fax: +49 (40) 21035-300 | www.steinberg.net
President: Andreas Stelling | Managing Director: Hiroshi Sasaki, Hirofumi Osawa
Registration Court: Hamburg HRB 86534
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <
[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <
[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <
[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <
[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to <
[hidden email]>
Locked
