RE: [Devel] Re: Distiller produced CFF fonts

[Blinn, Eric W]

> Tom Kacvinsky wrote:
>
> I just merged Wes's patchesinto my copy of the code. 

Something to note. Make sure you have also picked up the follow-up patch
that Wes sent to the list on 10/27.

> 1.  Currently, the setup sis like: codes[gid] = charcode, whereas I was
> expecting codes[char_code] = gid.  The latter format will support supp.
> encoding data much easier.

I believe the design choice to index the codes array by glyph ID was
intended to mirror the way that Format 0 codes are laid out in the font
itself. Now, as for how switching to indexing by charcode would affect what
I'm working on... 

Well, the impact would be minor really. We do have one custom FreeType
function that has a dependency on this layout. It takes a charcode and
returns a glyph name. I would just have to modify how the table lookup is
done, but that would be simple enough. So if indexing by charcode is better
for going forward and supporting supplemental encoding data, then by all
means...

I'll have to take another look at the CFF spec and give a little more
thought to some of the other points you made. Unfortunately my brain has
started the holiday early, so methinks it is time to call it a day!  :-)

- Eric