[luatex] Glyph names heuristics

Hans Hagen pragma at wxs.nl
Mon Mar 31 19:57:50 CEST 2014

On 3/31/2014 7:42 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> On 2014-03-31 Hans Hagen wrote:
>> On 3/29/2014 7:51 AM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
>>> On 2014-03-28 Hans Hagen wrote:
>>>> On 3/28/2014 7:23 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
>>>>> Btw, has anybody any idea where the following 'dotlessi' patch has
>>>>> been lost?
>>>>> http://www.ntg.nl/pipermail/ntg-context/2013/076306.html
>>>>> It was working in December in ConTeXt 2013.12.20 / LuaTeX 0.77.0 on
>>>>> Windows 7
>>>> might be that i can cook up a version at the context end (like an
>>>> overload)
>>>>  From my POV the font handling is a very low level part and should be
>>>> kept in luatex...
>> we're talking of heuristics for determining glyphnames when not present
>> and that is a real messy thing ... in fact, better would be to keep all
>> that at the lua end (easier to overload) and eventually that might
>> happen (it's quite hard to fight frozen invalid properties)
> My only wish is to automate it and distribute out-of-the-box without any
> additional tweaking and interventions from end users.
> I understand that hardcoding it into LuaTeX may be risky, but if done
> properly according to the logic of other font libraries/typesetting
> software, it could be more efficient. As LuaTeX can be theoretically used by
> various macropackages, it means all of them would have to implement the same
> thing separately.

the problem is that when hardcoding is based on fuzzy logic one looses 
information to get back to the original .. a trade of between user 
friendliness and perfection

a specific usage overload (e.g in a context setup) will not harm oither 
users with different demands

> I think that current heuristics is very good and Khaled patch made it even
> better, IMHO comparable to e.g. InDesign.

well, most heuristics are actually not that perfect and in the end one 
has to use the adobe glyph list anyway

> Regarding efficiency. Would it be possible to create the font database as
> usual and those fonts with missing glyph names mark with a special flag?
> They would be 'finalized' on the first request/real use. By finalizing I
> mean the complete glyphs names determination.
> Why to process all of them in advance even never used? It is just an idea -
> without a deep analysis of the corresponding source code.

the only robust solution is not to use glyph names in lookup definitions 
but indices (glyph names are only useful for tracing and tounicode)

anyway, as said: i'll look into it later this year but the current 
binary stays as it is

(btw, the specific problem is a dotlessi vs i issue and it's always 
debatable if one should then tag as dotless i or i if it's used for both 


                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
     tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                              | www.pragma-pod.nl

More information about the luatex mailing list