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? Can I use either list or should I stick with font-age? Thanks for any advice Philipp [1] http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/opentype/glyphlist.txt [2] http://www.ntg.nl/pipermail/ntg-context/2008/031575.html http://www.ntg.nl/pipermail/ntg-context/2008/029067.html