[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on 0.56
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Comments on 0.56
- From: Ulrik Vieth <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:55:56 +0100
- Cc: Thierry.Bouche@ujf-grenoble.fr, email@example.com
> Whatever `missing glyph' marker is used, my own preference would be
> that the tfm metrics for that slot represent (an approximation to)
> the metrics for the glyph that is missing, rather than the size of
> the marker. This means that if someone wants to fake the glyph (eg
> remove a dot from a j, or invert some symbol, or whatever) they at
> least have reliable information about the size of the glyph that needs
> to be faked.
Before we introduced the new marker symbols, the default missing glyph
marker used to be a square box, but the height and depth was reset to
zero, so as not to interfere with the TFM limitiations of 15 different
values of heights and depths.
An approximation to the actual glpyh metrics were used only in a very
few cases, such as the 'dotlessj' (height of `dotlessi', depth of 'j')
or the big `copoduct' in MXP (same as big `product'). I guess we
could do something similar for a few other cases of inverted symbols,
but so far we haven't bothered.