Re: Progress update on adjustment database

[Werner LEMBERG]

> > OK.  I think it is a bad side effect of the current auto-hinting
> > algorithm that there are different approaches.
> 
> I just want to clarify: you understood that the reason I used
> different approaches for each letter was to compare the approaches?
> My intent is to use one of those approaches as a universal algorithm
> for all characters with tildes.  So every character would just have
> a boolean flag for whether to apply tilde hinting or not.

Ah, I was confused, sorry – I thought that you get such varying
results for a single algorithm.  Sometimes it happens (not taking your
current work into account) that blue zones affect the hinting of
accents in a bad way, and I thought this were such cases.

> Also, did you see my question about a glyph mapping to multiple
> characters?

I missed it, sorry again.  You write:

> It's possible that 2 characters in the adjustment database could map
> to the same glyph, which will create 2 entries in the reverse
> character map with the same glyph as a key.  In this case, the
> character that glyph maps to is decided arbitrarily based on which
> one the binary search chooses and which order qsort puts them in.
> What should be done in these cases?

Perhaps the following?

(1) If glyph A is in the 'cmap' table, and glyph B is not, prefer
    glyph A.

(2) If one glyph needs X lookups and another glyph needs Y, and X < Y,
    prefer glyph X.

I'm not sure whether (2) makes sense, though.

Can you give one or more examples for such cases?


    Werner