On 2013-06-25 at 9:12 you wrote:
Hi again Bob,
I've experimented with this, and now I think I spoke too soon.
But maybe I don't understand your suggestion.
The glyphs *must* have unique names.
Why? (only slightly rhetorical)
If they *must* have names, then those names are being used by one or
more processes (human and/or machine) and, if that is true then the
names need to conform to whatever such processes require. But you have
claimed you don't need to conform to at least one such machine process
(PDF text copy), so I'm trying to understand what process(es) you
believe do require names.
Once one knows what processes are required, only then can one decide
what the name requirements are, if any.
My problem with this is: I do not approve of the Adobe names.
Can you give examples of what names (from the Adobe Glyph List For New
fonts <http://sourceforge.net/projects/aglfn.adobe/files/aglfn.txt>) you
find objectionable and why they are so?
Or is it the "uni" and "u" names (used for everything not in the aglfn)
that you don't like?