Am 07.05.2013 um 13:47 schrieb Philipp Gesang
<philipp.ges...@alumni.uni-heidelberg.de>:
> 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?
The first list uses decimal numbers while adobes list uses hexadecimal numbers.
Wolfgang
___________________________________________________________________________________
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
___________________________________________________________________________________
