[Fontinst] Re: Bug in fontinstversion{1.927}

[Peter Dyballa]

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?

--
Greetings

   Pete

 From error to error, one discovers the entire truth.
                                                             -Sigmund 
Freud