Follow-up Comment #14, bug #65716 (group groff): I have an even better authority - libgroff itself!
../src/libs/libgroff/glyphuni.cpp: { "parenlefttp", "239B" },
../src/libs/libgroff/uniglyph.cpp: { "239B", "parenlefttp" },
[...]
../src/utils/afmtodit/afmtodit.tables: "parenlefttp", "F8EB",
Is there a good reason why glyphuni.cpp allocates a different UCP than
afmtodit.tables (apart from the fact that the afmtodit value is the code which
was used by Adobe before the glyph was accepted into Unicode proper)?
The fact we are using out of date info in afmtodit is not catastrophic because
they all have groff names as well, and eqn uses the groff names to access the
glyphs. The problem is that now (since 1.24) we include the UCP in the comment
field of all fonts generated by afmtodit, so we are dispersing incorrect
information, which causes confusion.
The file referred to in comment #10 is not intended as a replacement for
glyphlist.txt, just confirmation that some of the glyphs in the symbol font
received changed UCPs. In fact the afmtodit.tables file includes the following
comment:-
# This table was algorithmically derived from the Adobe Glyph List (AGL)
# file 'glyphlist.txt' from the GitHub Adobe Type Tools agl-aglfn
# project, on 2025-10-09.
#
# See "groff:" comments for altered mappings.
The final line infers there may be specific changed mappings, but none are
currently annotated.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?65716>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
