> > I don't have any clue what standard these names are based on; It is not > > supported by other UNIXes, by font editors (such as Fontographer), or > > by conversion tools. > > Those are standard names by Adobe. I can't give you an exact pointer, but > I believe that you wil find that in the Type1 specs somewhere on Adobe's > site.
The names are given in the adobe glyph list. They are a standard for postscript fonts and should be used. You can find the list (and some more information at http://www.adobe.com/asn/developer/typeforum/unicodegn.html > > This is not the first case that "somebody" doesn't love the standard > > encoding; I already experienced a case where the "Encoding" attribute > > of Type1 had to be changed to "StandardEncoding"; But it's the first > > time that I have to define a new table, of 255 names, dozens ofthem > > non-standard. > > > > I'm afraid that I'll have to supply a special set of fonts, dedicated > > for Linux, because after this change, the fonts will not work with > > other UNIXes. > > > > Does anybody have any idea why XF86 moved to a non-standard encoding?! > > I believe that this *is* the current standard (maybe those names simplify > the interpeters?). The glyph list is the standard. Using aacute and other names reserved to latin1 for hebrew glyphs is against the type1 standard as defined by adobe. It might be possible that some commercial unixes can't handle these correctly but in this case it's them doing something wrong, not Linux. Cheers, Lars ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
