Properly developed fonts will only facilitate content in non-complex scripts.
On 15 October 2012 10:47, <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 14 Oct 2012, Peter Baker wrote: >> It's all in the font, really. If an OT substitution results in a character >> from the font's PUA being inserted in the character stream (except for a few >> standard ligatures), then the result will be broken searches. Because of > > Adobe encourages font designers to give glyphs names that reflect the > Unicode code points (or sequences thereof) that the glyphs should > represent in searches. If font designers did that, and if PDF readers > looked at the glyph names according to Adobe's directions, then searches > would work regardless of PUA use. However, not all fonts and not all > readers do this. > > Some PDF readers will use the code points in the cmap table or equivalent > in preference to the glyph names when cmap code points exist, so your > recommendation of unencoded glyphs remains a good idea even when glyph > names ought to resolve the issue. > -- > Matthew Skala > [email protected] People before principles. > http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/ > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex -- Andrew Cunningham Project Manager, Research and Development Social and Digital Inclusion Unit Public Libraries and Community Engagement State Library of Victoria 328 Swanston Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia Ph: +61-3-8664-7430 Mobile: 0459 806 589 Email: [email protected] [email protected] http://www.openroad.net.au/ http://www.mylanguage.gov.au/ http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/ -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
