Do you need a more complete Glyph List?

Hi all!
Designing typefaces I feel not enough of Adobe Glyph List (~4500 glyphs) to naming new characters so I decided to create my own (>9000 glyphs). This file is the result. Every one can use it without problems.

Improvements and suggestions are very welcome.


Fabrizio Schiavi


  • Georg SeifertGeorg Seifert Posts: 610
    edited May 2018
    You know about our GlyphsInfo repo?
    It contains 28000 entires.
  • Thomas PhinneyThomas Phinney Posts: 1,855
    edited May 2018
    Fabrizio: Are these supposed to be working glyph names, or final glyph names (meaning, glyph names that end up in the output font)?
  • GNFUL is probably also worth mentioning here. It also includes the Glyph Name Formatter scripts to help you use your own naming schemes.
  • @Georg Seifert wow! I never seen something like this. My work on glyph naming seems totally useless now :( Probably is better to contribute to your repo. Thank you!

    @Thomas Phinney the intention is to use it for the final glyph names

    @Benedikt Bramböck wow wow! Very clean and useful job!

    Thank you to all! Your suggestions are been precious. I’m impressed by your knownledge
  • Thomas PhinneyThomas Phinney Posts: 1,855
    edited May 2018
    I am old school, so I actively do NOT want to use an extended list of glyph names that can break PDF searchability and copy/paste of text from PDF.

    I recognize that the workflows creating PDFs that have that problem are not common, but I don't see a need to create the risk. Yes, it only happens when either the PDF creation software/workflow is exceptionally stupid, and/or the PDF is created by first printing a PS file to disk and then creating the PDF from that, without the PDF creator accessing the original font.

    So, no, it is not true to say “everyone can use it without problems.” Just not information-licensing problems.  ;)
  • Dear Thomas, I am old school too, but it is sad to see Unicode adding thousands of glyphs every year and PDF standards remaining intact.
    How to remedy? Do you have suggestions?
  • Georg SeifertGeorg Seifert Posts: 610
    For final glyph names you should always use the AGLFN names and uniXXXX otherwise. There gives best compatibility (with PDF but also if someone needs to open your files). The Interesting part is to build names that can be used when designing. Those should be human readable and as descriptive as possible.
  • Thomas PhinneyThomas Phinney Posts: 1,855
    edited May 2018
    What Georg said.

    FontLab VI uses this approach as well.

    Fabrizio: there is no remedy in the sense that if you want to maximize compatibility with ancient standards, that’s what you have to do. It isn’t something Adobe can fix by adding to AGL because everyone wants to be compatible with old standards.

    Glyph mapping systems where you use one set of names for “working” names and another for final output are not too difficult to create, and mostly work well. The biggest catch I have noticed so far is with OpenType code that uses (working) glyph names, for the portability of that code.... So there are good reasons to want to standardize working glyph names, too. Not just final output names.
Sign In or Register to comment.