Re: [NTG-context] [***SPAM***] Incorrect internal font processing - ntg-context

27 Nov 2013


      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

Re: [NTG-context] [SPAM] Incorrect internal font processing

Jan Tosovsky

tags

participants (1)