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

9 May 2013


      ·········
...
On 5/7/2013 1:47 PM, Philipp Gesang wrote:
...
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?
only
twentyhangzhou	5344
that’s 21316, but the new font-age has 12345 -- maybe some
placeholder?
...
was missing in char-def
the rest of the delta with the adobe list are synonyms
i've added the delta to font-age (makes it bigger but the list is
not that critical anyway, mostly a fallback)
Okay, thanks!

Philipp