···<date: 2013-05-07, Tuesday>···<from: Wolfgang Schuster>···
>
> 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.
I was asking about the names: “SF10000” vs. “SF010000”;
“afii208” vs. “afii00208”. The values are identical.
Philipp
pgpUcTholjQmL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________
