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

Philipp Gesang Philipp.Gesang at alumni.uni-heidelberg.de
Tue May 7 14:07:46 CEST 2013


···<date: 2013-05-07, Tuesday>···<from: Wolfgang Schuster>···

> 
> Am 07.05.2013 um 13:47 schrieb Philipp Gesang <Philipp.Gesang at alumni.uni-heidelberg.de>:
> 
> > 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.ntg.nl/pipermail/ntg-context/attachments/20130507/275311e9/attachment.pgp>


More information about the ntg-context mailing list