Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [OpenType] PS glyph `phi' vs `phi1'

Expand Messages
  • Werner LEMBERG
    ... OK, let me formulate my provocative question differently: Show me a widely used (technical) font which contains the Unicode 3.0 shape of U+03D5. I really
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 21, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      > >Show me a widely used font which contains both U+03C6 and U+03D5.
      >
      > That was not the issue. The issue is when font wanted to add 03D5
      > that they would not just put the opposite glyph into 03D5. Or just
      > end up having a duplicate glyph. Fonts that have 03D5 by their
      > nature should be intended for use with technical publishing and
      > therefore are not (as) free in their choice of glyph for 03C6 as
      > pure text fonts are.

      OK, let me formulate my provocative question differently:

      Show me a widely used (technical) font which contains the Unicode
      3.0 shape of U+03D5.

      I really wonder that no major font company has ever addressed this
      problem publicly (at least this issue has never been discussed on the
      OpenType list AFAIK) -- Unicode 3.0 is out since a long time...

      Here my proposal to partly fix the problem. It won't help for
      pre-Unicode 3.0 documents but it should enable software to use older
      fonts which use Adobe Glyph Names with recent Unicode.

      . Adobe should fix the mapping in AGL's `glyphlist.txt' since the
      AGL identifies glyph shapes. Thus `phi' is the stroked glyph and
      `phi1' the curly version. I'm referring to Adobe's `Symbol' font
      version 001.007 -- most PS printers have this font built in.

      phi 03D5
      phi1 03C6

      . The annotation to U+03D5 should not refer to the AGL entity `phi1'
      but to `phi' (and something similar should be added to U+03C6).

      . If both PS glyph names `phi' and `phi1' are available in a single
      font, the software should rely on them instead of mapping Unicode
      code points to glyph indices directly. Otherwise proceed as
      usual.

      . In the OpenType specification, the `post' table should get a new
      version 3.1 (or something similar) to indicate the use of Unicode
      3.0 and newer for glyph shapes. Alternatively, a new GSUB
      feature called `uni3' which flips the two glyph shapes could be
      added. [This is a weak point. Any better ideas how to mark an
      OpenType font to be compliant with Unicode 3.0?]

      Given the fact (as shown in another mail from Raymond) that most fonts
      haven't been updated to the Unicode 3.0 glyph shapes of phi I can
      imagine that my proposal greatly reduces the number of incorrect
      displays of U+03C6 and U+03D5.


      Werner
    • John M. Fiscella
      Message text written by INTERNET:opentype@topica.com ... pre-Unicode 3.0 documents but it should enable software to use older fonts which use Adobe Glyph Names
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 22, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Message text written by INTERNET:opentype@...
        Werner said:
        >Here my proposal to partly fix the problem. It won't help for
        pre-Unicode 3.0 documents but it should enable software to use older
        fonts which use Adobe Glyph Names with recent Unicode.

        . Adobe should fix the mapping in AGL's `glyphlist.txt' since the
        AGL identifies glyph shapes. Thus `phi' is the stroked glyph and
        `phi1' the curly version. I'm referring to Adobe's `Symbol' font
        version 001.007 -- most PS printers have this font built in.

        phi 03D5
        phi1 03C6
        <

        The problem with this is that the preferred 'text' form for the lower Greek
        alphabet is the glyph shown in Unicode 3.0 Book @ U+03C6, which is the
        glyph found in most fonts having the Greek alphabet, including TNR. That
        glyph should not be rightly identified with a glyphname of an alternate
        glyph (phi1). The fact that Adobe's Symbol font glyph naming was inherently
        inconsistent with Unicode was known since before Unicode 2.0, but it was
        deemed irrelevant, since Symbol encoding was not any official standard. Our
        fonts contain both glyphs (and additional alternates as well) and are
        consistent with Unicode 3.0.

        John F.
      • Werner LEMBERG
        ... Thus my suggestion to introduce an additional code point `GREEK ALTERNATIVE SYMBOL PHI ... ... Sigh. Is it only me who sees a problem here? I
        Message 3 of 8 , Feb 23, 2003
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          > phi 03D5
          > phi1 03C6
          >
          > The problem with this is that the preferred 'text' form for the
          > lower Greek alphabet is the glyph shown in Unicode 3.0 Book @
          > U+03C6, which is the glyph found in most fonts having the Greek
          > alphabet, including TNR.

          Thus my suggestion to introduce an additional code point `GREEK
          ALTERNATIVE SYMBOL PHI'...

          > That glyph should not be rightly identified with a glyphname of an
          > alternate glyph (phi1). The fact that Adobe's Symbol font glyph
          > naming was inherently inconsistent with Unicode was known since
          > before Unicode 2.0, but it was deemed irrelevant, since Symbol
          > encoding was not any official standard. Our fonts contain both
          > glyphs (and additional alternates as well) and are consistent with
          > Unicode 3.0.

          Sigh. Is it only me who sees a problem here? <sarcasm> I get the
          impression that most persons answering in this thread think ``Horray,
          my font is compliant to Unicode 3.0, and everything else is not
          important.'' </sarcasm>

          What about the many PS printers which have Adobe's symbol font built
          in? I'm really interested in any constructive idea how to solve the
          problem in a realistic way. Buying new fonts just for this purpose is
          not realistic IMHO.


          Werner
        • John M. Fiscella
          Message text written by Werner LEMBERG ... in? I m really interested in any constructive idea how to solve the problem in a realistic way. Buying new fonts
          Message 4 of 8 , Feb 23, 2003
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Message text written by Werner LEMBERG
            >What about the many PS printers which have Adobe's symbol font built
            in? I'm really interested in any constructive idea how to solve the
            problem in a realistic way. Buying new fonts just for this purpose is
            not realistic IMHO.<

            I don't think that is a problem. The Symbol font has a "custom encoding" or
            "special encoding" (you choose the name). It is a 1-byte (8-bit) font,
            whose encoding is completely separate from Unicode. Non-Unicode fonts will
            continue to be used well beyond our lifetimes. Actually, the only time a
            non-Unicode encoding needs to be reckoned with in detail is if that font is
            used as a component font of a composite font. For example, if a UTF-16 font
            is assembled using 1-byte fonts as components from which to reference
            glyphs. Of course, it depends on the OS and application to correctly handle
            encoding differences of various fonts; some do and some don't.

            John F.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.