Hi all, the glyph list is a bit of a conundrum.
Context (font-enc.lua) will build its glyph list from
font-agl.lua and char-def.lua. Luatex-Fonts reads a file named
font-age.lua, which is, however, some 500 character definitions
short of the canonical Glyph List from Adobe’s resources [1]. On
the other hand, font-age contains these definitions
table={
["SF10000"]=9484, ["SF20000"]=9492, ["SF30000"]=9488,
["SF40000"]=9496, ["SF50000"]=9532, ["SF60000"]=9516,
["SF70000"]=9524, ["SF80000"]=9500, ["SF90000"]=9508,
["afii208"]=8213,
}
which Adobe denotes padded as
SF010000;250C
SF020000;2514
SF030000;2510
SF040000;2518
SF050000;253C
SF060000;252C
SF070000;2534
SF080000;251C
SF090000;2524
afii00208;2015
I’m not sure what to make of these differences and how they came
to pass except for some older posts in the list archive [2]. So
I’m asking for practical reasons:
Are the differences of any significance?
Can I use either list or should I stick with font-age?
Thanks for any advice
Philipp
[1] http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/opentype/glyphlist.txt
[2] http://www.ntg.nl/pipermail/ntg-context/2008/031575.html
http://www.ntg.nl/pipermail/ntg-context/2008/029067.html
pgpJqK0eb_42e.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
