> > OK. I think it is a bad side effect of the current auto-hinting
> > algorithm that there are different approaches.
>
> I just want to clarify: you understood that the reason I used
> different approaches for each letter was to compare the approaches?
> My intent is to use one of those approaches as a universal algorithm
> for all characters with tildes. So every character would just have
> a boolean flag for whether to apply tilde hinting or not.
Ah, I was confused, sorry – I thought that you get such varying
results for a single algorithm. Sometimes it happens (not taking your
current work into account) that blue zones affect the hinting of
accents in a bad way, and I thought this were such cases.
> Also, did you see my question about a glyph mapping to multiple
> characters?
I missed it, sorry again. You write:
> It's possible that 2 characters in the adjustment database could map
> to the same glyph, which will create 2 entries in the reverse
> character map with the same glyph as a key. In this case, the
> character that glyph maps to is decided arbitrarily based on which
> one the binary search chooses and which order qsort puts them in.
> What should be done in these cases?
Perhaps the following?
(1) If glyph A is in the 'cmap' table, and glyph B is not, prefer
glyph A.
(2) If one glyph needs X lookups and another glyph needs Y, and X < Y,
prefer glyph X.
I'm not sure whether (2) makes sense, though.
Can you give one or more examples for such cases?
Werner
