Hi, I should correct some statements I made before. This draws mostly from the PDF reference, v. 1.7.
I maintain that the relation between glyphs and Unicode sequences supposed by the AGLFN is a bad idea and essentially broken. That said, however: 1) My reference to "embedding Unicode text" seems to have been a trick of my imagination. It seems to be a conflation of the PDF technology of embedded fonts with that of embedded documents. However, after looking for several evenings now, I can't find anything like the idea that seemed so clear to me: Unicode text embedded in PDF with references from positioned glyphs into that text. (I didn't *think* I was making this up -- I seemed vividly to remember reading about it, and even doing it! Disturbing, yes.) Sure, embedded text would be a working solution, but it seems not to have been implemented at all in current PDF technologies. 2) While the existing PDF "ToUnicode" mapping is incapable of reproducing the original text, and while it may mangle text in complex scripts such as Indic ones, it seems to be the *only* technology existing for extracting text from a PDF document. Furthermore, in most cases, for simple alphabetic scripts anyway, the text produced by the "ToUnicode" mapping would usually be meaningful. For more complex scripts, the worst-case scenario occurs, but rarely: most sentences produced would be readable. That is, if the whole system really works as advertized. 3) The PDF "ToUnicode" stream could or should be produced by the font layout engine based on font table entries. Evidently the incorrect, restrictive and ugly AGLFN is the way current PDF software is supposed to get the info to populate the "ToUnicode" entries. I'm still working on a summary of the issues and technologies. The AGLFN (unfortunate though it is) represents the only way currently proposed to effect the secondary, but important, function of copying text from a rendered PDF document. So I'm now working on a way to apply AGLFN names to FreeFont auxiliary glyphs at build time. The next question is: Does it work for our users? If the font's auxiliary glyph names are made as those specified by Adobe, and standard Unix/Linux tools are used to create a PDF with the font embedded, will the auxiliary glyphs be (somehow) converted to text?