[pdftex] ToUnicode map and virtual fonts

Thanh Han The hanthethanh at gmail.com
Tue Oct 3 12:38:58 CEST 2006

On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:06:07AM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > Most of the problems mentioned can be solved by following
> > http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/opentype/index_glyph.html,
> > which is not very hard.
> Yes.
> > > . I dislike the automatic handling of `small', `oldstyle',
> > >   `inferior', and `superior' suffixes which is against the AGL
> > >   rules.  Fonts which don't follow the AGL need a bundle of calls
> > >   to \pdfglyphtounicode anyway, so why does this exception exist?
> >
> > I cannot see why this is bad. I stole the idea from somewhere in the
> > Internet (sorry I cannot exactly recall where it is; I only remember
> > it comes from some documentation about an XSL-FO processor). This
> > actually saves us from many calls to \pdfglyphtounicode, as such
> > names are pretty common in opentype fonts and cannot be considered
> > as exceptions IMO. Do you have an example when this causes problem?
> Well, the list of `official' glyph names which contains `small' in its
> names (like `Asmall') is Adobe's glyphlist.txt.  This list is frozen.
> Any other font which contains glyphs with a trailing `small' in its
> name is non-standard which consequently means that you need a bunch of
> \pdfglyphtounicode calls anyway.  However, this is my personal
> opinion.
> Which OpenType fonts do you have in mind if you say `such names are
> pretty common'?  Normally, glyphs like `Asmall' are called `A.small'
> in recent fonts.

you are right again, all the above mentioned suffixes are
preceded with a dot, hence following the Adobe
recommendations would make this unnecessary.


More information about the pdftex mailing list