When to use glyphname and when to use uniXXXX?

Options
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.

Comments

  • Erwin Denissen
    Options
    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.

  • Thomas Phinney
    Options
    Kent’s answer is exactly what I would have said.  :)
  • Martin Wenzel
    Options
    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 :smile:
  • Thomas Phinney
    Options
    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
    John Hudson Posts: 3,013
    Options
    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.