> >Well, this font doesn't contain an encoding! Most of the glyphs
> >can only be accessed by glyph names.
>
> But if there is no encodind available (i.e. custom encoding) we
> can't access glyphs by names either ?
As George has already stated, glyph names are stored separately.
> >Anyway, I've added support to recognize `uXXXX[X[X]]' glyph names so
> >that a few glyphs get proper entries in a synthesized Unicode charmap.
> I think that in this case there should be at least a custom encoding
> (in addition to an optional Unicode encoding).
Why? What order shall I use? The glyphs in the font are all
unencoded. In the sample PDF file you've sent to me the glyphs are
(re)encoded anyway.
> I am right or wrong that a font (Type1, CFF) should always have at
> least a custom encoding.
You are wrong. Similar to Type 1, a CFF font can contain only
unencoded glyphs: Either it has an /Encoding array which contains only
/.notdef (this is Type 1), or (as with your font) it denotes
AdobeStandardEncoding but without a single corresponding SID.