Gary Munch asked:
> What sort of behavior might we look for to find those characters that
> should be suspected of having those glyph names? Crashes, non-printing,
> glyph substitution, blank spaces, non-advancing cursor? Is the behavior
> repeatable in several apps, or is there a particular sort of app that
> might be affected by the unusual glyph names?
Therein lies the problem - that I don't know whether there is a problem.
I'm simply checking because of a suspicion that names in unexpected form
may cause problems somewhere, and that I may learn about those problems
only after the fact. So far, I've not uncovered any problems, but I know of
no way to do truly exhaustive testing. I was hoping that someone may have
already stumbled on this situation and could share some pointers.
> Do people really call their glyphs >Gunder,< instead of Gundercomma;
> or >iotaź„< instead of iotadiaeresistonos?
For all I know, nobody has done anything very adventurous with Type 1 glyph
names. Many people simply lie about glyph names in order to use the
standard encoding. Many professionals do use standard names for standard
characters like Gcommaaccent (I'd recommend against a variant like
Gundercomma, since it won't be recognized by software that parses glyph
names) and iotadieresistonos. I was thinking of names for nonstandard
alternates like "ampersand_4", "f.begin" or "b-alt", but the possibility of
unusual marks in names may also come up in various symbol fonts.
- David Lemon
Quick wafting zephyrs vex bold Jim.