Hi On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:28 PM, BobH <ne1oqz...@sneakemail.com> wrote: > On 2013-06-25 at 9:12 you wrote: > > 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) > I mixed things up there. Internally references are made by glyph ID, so I know of no structural reason why they must be unique. FontForge correctly insists on uniqueness when names are being set.
I'm talking about font generation by FontForge. I find no way to *remove* the glyph names. Only ways to replace them with other sets of glyph names. Am I missing something? > 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), Our conformance to this broken idea would not unbreak it. It might serve to prolong it, but I think that is detrimental to the public good. > so I'm > trying to understand what process(es) you believe do require names. > ?? Very few. Have you misunderstood me. As I wrote in the posting before last, for the primary purpose of display, the names are superfluous. The only process I even know of that used glyph names and had a legitimate intent was the PDF copying one. But again, I regard that as broken and defunct. > 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) 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? > It's the AGLFN names I don't like. They amount to a loss of information, besides being ugly. There are a few AGL names that are just wrong (and there are also a few Unicode names that are just wrong too). These things happen. To be honest, more names in FreeFont are just wrong, than either the AGL or Unicode. But they're *our* names, and have other advantages too (brevity, etc). But again, the functioning of outside code must not depend on glyph names. Keep me thinking, Bob!