On 2013-11-27 Jan Tosovsky wrote:
On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
On 11/27/2013 10:20 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
On 11/27/2013 9:53 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
On 11/27/2013 8:44 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote: > > during my attempts to patch the Palatino's dotless 'i' I found > that this font is parsed incorrectly by ConTeXt. > > Comparing index/name info of individual glyphs in the font > software and resulting pala.tma file there is the following > difference: > > Index | Name - font | Name - tma > 1110 | dotlessi.smcp | i.sc (1) > 1170 | i.smcp | i.sc (2) > > The first one should have IMHO a different name. > The same name for two glyphs might be dangerous.
the fact that there are two i.sc in the font is suspicious ... best check the font in fontforge ... one never know what kind of things other programs do
Hmm, FontForge glyphs naming corresponds to what we can observe in the ConTeXt (doubled i.sc). My previous analysis was based on FontLab. I am confused now...
Actually, there are no names of these glyphs available in the font so they are calculated(!) Each of two programs uses a different method. FontLab method is based on layout tables - GPOS, GSUB, GDEF (it somehow detects that both glyps differs). The FontForge method is unclear and seems to be buggy. But we should blame rather the font itself as it is the primary cause of these problems (= missing glyph names). Jan