[Fontinst] Encoding inconsistency?

Ulrich Dirr ud at art-satz.de
Thu Dec 4 06:58:25 CET 2003

Thanks for the information! At least I'm now understanding better ...

Best regards,
Ulrich Dirr

Lars Hellström wrote:
> At 10.30 +0100 2003-12-03, Ulrich Dirr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> while experimenting with OpenType fonts I came across some
>> inconsistencies in encoding files.
> I'm not entirely surprised by this. The fontinst ETX and MTX files
> have a long history, and during that time some things have changed.
>> I have used cm-super-t1.enc as I did not find a t1.enc (what is the
>> canonic t1 encoding file? Cork.enc?).
> Good question (implies: I don't know the answer). There is a fair
> chance there may not be a canonical ENC file for T1.
>> When compared with t1.etx
> A better object of comparison would be t1draft.etx in
> fontinst/doc/encspecs/. t1.etx just aims to produce useful fonts.
> t1draft.etx at least aims to specify the encoding. See also
> encspecs.tex in that directory for more info on the matter.
>> I have found the following differences
>> /endash       /rangedash
>> /emdash       /punctdash
> These are explained in ltpunct.mtx.
>> /compwordmark /afii61664
> (I assume these are the wrong way round.)
> Cool---a (near) non-TeX-occurrence of this thingie! Usually fonts
> doesn't have anything like it and therefore relies on MTX files to
> construct it. 
>> /uni2423      /visiblespace % and in cork.enc it's /visualspace
> Perhaps mostly a matter of the new vs. the old.
>> /hyphen.alt   /hyphenchar
>> /Ng           /Eng          % Adobe Eng;014A
>> /Tcedilla     /Tcommaaccent % Adobe both Tcedilla;0162
>> Tcommaaccent;0162
> This is an old headache, which also involves Scedilla. When T1 was
> designed (and for many years afterwards) it was believed that the
> comma accent (as used in e.g. Romanian and Latvian) was the same
> thing as the cedilla accent, and thus glyphs was named accordingly.
> Then it was "discovered" that they were different, and ever since
> then things have been confused. Generally, you can't trust the glyph
> name to accurately describe the glyph in this case.
> As a side note, I see in the Unicode character charts that U+0163
> (latin small letter t with cedilla) is used for "Semitic
> transliteration", so maybe it isn't as completely useless as it has
> been thought to be. 
>> /dcroat       /dbar         % dcroat;0111 in Adobe's glyphlist.txt
> New and old. See comments in lsbuild.mtx.
>> /ng           /eng          % Adobe eng;014B
>> /tcedilla     /tcommaaccent % Adobe both tcedilla;0163
>> tcommaaccent;0163 /Germandbls   /SS           % not in Adobe's
>> list 
> Making SS a character in T1 was probably mostly due to a desire to
> support \uppercase, but it's a rather pointless character. Last time
> I looked, it wasn't even in Unicode.
> Lars Hellström

More information about the fontinst mailing list