Re: hidden composites

[Thierry Bouche <Thierry.Bouche@ujf-grenoble.fr>]

Hi again & thanks!

Concernant « Re: hidden composites », Melissa O'Neill écrit :

 > Generally, I've found that AFMs have more metric information than one
 > can extract (easily) from a PFA file, however. However, a quick look

of course

 > at the available information seems to indicate that it might be doable
 > in this case.
 > 
 > You'd need a tool like t1disasm to look at the relevent `seac' entries
 > in the CharStrings dictionary, then if you see:
 > 
 > /<glyphname> {
 >         <sbx> <wx> hsbw
 >         <asb> <adx> <ady> <bchar> <achar> seac
 >         } ND
 > 
 > ...and, if you let:
 >    <accentglyph> = StandardEncoding[<achar>]
 >    <baseglyph>   = StandardEncoding[<bchar>]
 >    <ax>		 = <sbx> + <adx> - <asb>
 >    <ay>		 = <ady>
 > 
 > ... then you could try the following composite character entry in the AFM
 > file:
 > 
 > CC <glyphname> 2 ; PCC <baseglyph> 0 0 ; PCC <accentglyph> <ax> <ay> ; 
 > 

nice explaination, I hadn't recognise these computations!

 > It shouldn't be too hard to write a perl script to do this all automatically.
 > 

or maybe it's doable in postscript?

 > This formula was derived emperically, by comparing AFM files of fonts
 > I had with their corresponding disassembled CharStrings; I make no claims
 > about its general applicability.
 > 

it seems to be true for adobe 35 standard already.

Thanks again