[pdftex] ToUnicode map and virtual fonts

[Thanh Han The]

On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 01:57:52PM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > 1. what should be put into glyphtounicode.tex?
>
> I suggest the contents of Adobe's `glyphlist.txt'.  I don't think you
> need more.

what about this (from
http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/opentype/index_glyph.html):

,--------
| if the font is Zapf Dingbats (PostScript FontName
| ZapfDingbats), and the component is in the ZapfDingbats
| list, then map it to the corresponding character in that
| list.
`--------

and entries in texglyphlist.txt (from lcdf-typetools)?

And at least some entries in AGL must be overwritten to make
ligatures searchable. The AGL says that:

,--------
| ff;FB00
| ffi;FB03
| ffl;FB04
| fi;FB01
`--------

but I think they must be written as

,--------
| \pdfglyphtounicode{ff}{00660066}
| \pdfglyphtounicode{ffi}{006600660069}
| \pdfglyphtounicode{ffl}{00660066006C}
| \pdfglyphtounicode{fi}{00660069}
`--------

to make those ligatures searchable.

> > 2. the feature works only for Type1 fonts at the moment.  The first
> > request for this feature came from ChoF to make it work with
> > subfont, but then I was told that it's no longer needed as it can be
> > done via macro.  Then someone else asked to support it for Minion.
> > It is possible to make it work with truetype fonts too, but I need
> > to learn more about this topic first.
>
> Well, for TrueType fonts it's probably not that important.  First of
> all, it is possible to have TT fonts without a `post' table, this is,
> without glyph names.  Second, glyph names in TTs are often
> non-standard (consider infamous issues like `Ohm' vs. `Omega').
>
> Only glyph names in OpenType fonts based on CFF and CID are worth to
> support, I think.

well, I am a little bit surprised to hear that from you since I think
CJK fonts are mostly in TrueType fortmat. Anyway, being a
lazy person I will leave out TrueType support for now,
unless someone asks for it.

Thanh