When to use glyphname and when to use uniXXXX?

Martin Wenzel

Hi there, I've been adhering to the naming of my glyphs (in my generated fonts) according to what Adobe does and what Thomas Phinney suggests (see for example https://github.com/tphinney/font-tools/blob/master/AL-4.enc) using as a glyph name “uni018F” instead of the readable “Schwa” or “uni0394” instead of “Delta”. I keep on wondering on what basis the decision is made to use a uniName (uni2089) instead of a readable glyph name (nine.inferior) for specific glyphs.

Erwin Denissen

While developing your font, you can name it as you please. Using a common user friendly name (in this case "Schwa") allows you to share OpenType layout feature code.

When your font is ready for release, FontCreator will automatically rename glyph names to the recommended names, e.g. uni018F. You can also decide to leave out the glyph names, to reduce the file size.

Kent Lew

The Adobe naming scheme is based upon their Adobe Glyph List Specification (AGL) and the Adobe Glyph List for New Fonts (AGLFN), which can be reviewed here: https://github.com/adobe-type-tools/agl-aglfn

You’ll find the answer to your example question in that spec.

The purpose for that specification has to do with the accurate interpretation and reconstruction of underlying Unicode text encoding from raw glyph names, primarily from PDFs created in certain workflows where original text encoding does not get embedded in the document.

Most type designers I know prefer to use “designer-friendly” names in development sources, and then deal with whether to convert to AGL-compliant production names during final production processing. (Not everyone does, and not in all cases.)

Thomas Phinney

Kent’s answer is exactly what I would have said.  

Martin Wenzel

Kent, Thomas, thank you for your answers. This is the way I have been doing things but I kept on asking myself when to go with what name, and why.
Wondering, does Microsoft adhere to the Adobe glyph lists too? A question I can easily research the answer to myself but maybe you know by heart

Thomas Phinney

Remember that MS are almost entirely working with TrueType outlines, so glyph names are less important than for those of us working with CFF. Indeed, some of their fonts may have no glyph names at all, as it is not required for TTF.

John Hudson

Indeed, some of their fonts may have no glyph names at all, as it is not required for TTF.

A point perhaps not realised by people familiarising themselves with OT variable fonts is that glyph names are also no longer required for CFF fonts if a CFF2 table and format 3 post table are used.