Re: [NTG-context] font-age vs. font-agl

7 May 2013


      ·········
...
Am 07.05.2013 um 13:47 schrieb Philipp Gesang :
...
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