[***SPAM***] Incorrect internal font processing

[***SPAM***] Incorrect internal font processing

[Jan Tosovsky]

Dear All,

during my attempts to patch the Palatino's dotless 'i' I found that this
font is parsed incorrectly by ConTeXt.

Comparing index/name info of individual glyphs in the font software and
resulting pala.tma file there is the following difference:

Index | Name - font    | Name - tma
1110  | dotlessi.smcp  | i.sc        (1)
1170  | i.smcp         | i.sc        (2)

(2) - this is a composite character which consist of dotlessi.smcp and dot.

The first one should have IMHO a different name, e.g. dotlessi.sc (to keep
conventions). The same name for two glyphs might be dangerous.

Regards, Jan

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [***SPAM***] Incorrect internal font processing

[Khaled Hosny]

On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 09:19:26PM +0100, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> On 2013-12-01 Khaled Hosny wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 11:21:30AM +0200, Khaled Hosny wrote:
> > 
> > Interestingly, after I patched Sorts Mill (a FontForge fork) to avoid
> > duplicates[1] I ended up with a ‘dotlessi.sc’ glyph, as it turns out
> > the font has a <dotlessi> → <regular smallcap i> later on, so that is 
> > where FontLab gets the glyph name, too.
> > 
> > I’ll try to port this patch to LuaTeX later.
> 
> Thanks for handling this! 
> 
> When can I expect this fix in luatex.dll updated on my local machine
> using the first-setup script?

I pushed the patch to LuaTeX trunk, so it should be in the next release,
but no idea about which or when.

Regards,
Khaled
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [***SPAM***] Incorrect internal font processing

[Jan Tosovsky]

On 2013-12-01 Khaled Hosny wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 11:21:30AM +0200, Khaled Hosny wrote:
> 
> Interestingly, after I patched Sorts Mill (a FontForge fork) to avoid
> duplicates[1] I ended up with a ‘dotlessi.sc’ glyph, as it turns out
> the font has a <dotlessi> → <regular smallcap i> later on, so that is 
> where FontLab gets the glyph name, too.
> 
> I’ll try to port this patch to LuaTeX later.

Thanks for handling this! 

When can I expect this fix in luatex.dll updated on my local machine using the first-setup script?

Will it be in any following minor 0.77 update or in 0.80 later this year?

Jan

Btw, FontForge could be patched as well ;-)

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [***SPAM***] Incorrect internal font processing

[Khaled Hosny]

On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 11:21:30AM +0200, Khaled Hosny wrote:
> It is not clear to me how FontLab arrived to the dotlessi name from the
> GSUB table, but I need to look into the font a bit more closer.

Interestingly, after I patched Sorts Mill (a FontForge fork) to avoid
duplicates[1] I ended up with a ‘dotlessi.sc’ glyph, as it turns out the
font has a <dotlessi> → <regular smallcap i> later on, so that is where
FontLab gets the glyph name, too.

I’ll try to port this patch to LuaTeX later.

Regards,
Khaled

[1] https://bitbucket.org/sortsmill/sortsmill-tools/commits/a7fdc1cd13d94659fe90848d0fe2878bbdd54d60
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [***SPAM***] Incorrect internal font processing

[Khaled Hosny]

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:35:01PM +0100, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> On 2013-11-27 Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> > On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> > > On 11/27/2013 10:20 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> > > > On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> > > >> On 11/27/2013 9:53 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> > > >>> On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> > > >>>> On 11/27/2013 8:44 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> during my attempts to patch the Palatino's dotless 'i' I found
> > > >>>>> that this font is parsed incorrectly by ConTeXt.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Comparing index/name info of individual glyphs in the font
> > > >>>>> software and resulting pala.tma file there is the following
> > > >>>>> difference:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Index | Name - font    | Name - tma
> > > >>>>> 1110  | dotlessi.smcp  | i.sc        (1)
> > > >>>>> 1170  | i.smcp         | i.sc        (2)
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> The first one should have IMHO a different name.
> > > >>>>> The same name for two glyphs might be dangerous.
> > > >>>>
> > >
> > > the fact that there are two i.sc in the font is suspicious ... best
> > > check the font in fontforge ... one never know what kind of things
> > > other programs do
> > 
> > Hmm, FontForge glyphs naming corresponds to what we can observe in the
> > ConTeXt (doubled i.sc). My previous analysis was based on FontLab. I am
> > confused now...
> 
> Actually, there are no names of these glyphs available in the font so they
> are calculated(!)

Right, the font (like many MS fonts) uses version 3 ‘post’ table which
includes no glyph names at all, software that needs glyph names (e.g.
LuaTeX, since you can’t embed a font is PDF without glyph names else
printers would go nuts) have to generate it. Some software will use dump
names; glyph1 etc. using glyph id, others will try to guess more
sensible names from the OpenType layout tables.

> Each of two programs uses a different method. FontLab method is based on
> layout tables - GPOS, GSUB, GDEF (it somehow detects that both glyps
> differs). The FontForge method is unclear and seems to be buggy.

FontForge uses the layout tables, too, but this font has a catch, it has
two <i> → <some glyph> substitutions in the ‘smcp’ feature, one to a
dotted small cap for Turkish (under TRK tag) and a regular one, and
FontForge just names the resultant glyph ‘i.sc’ in both cases since it
does not seem to check for duplicates, thinking that only one such a
substitution can happen per feature. LuaTeX uses a (subset of) FontForge
internally, so you get the same bug.

It is not clear to me how FontLab arrived to the dotlessi name from the
GSUB table, but I need to look into the font a bit more closer.

Regards,
Khaled
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [***SPAM***] Incorrect internal font processing

[Hans Hagen]

On 11/27/2013 11:35 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> On 2013-11-27 Jan Tosovsky wrote:
>> On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
>>> On 11/27/2013 10:20 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
>>>> On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
>>>>> On 11/27/2013 9:53 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
>>>>>> On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/27/2013 8:44 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> during my attempts to patch the Palatino's dotless 'i' I found
>>>>>>>> that this font is parsed incorrectly by ConTeXt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Comparing index/name info of individual glyphs in the font
>>>>>>>> software and resulting pala.tma file there is the following
>>>>>>>> difference:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Index | Name - font    | Name - tma
>>>>>>>> 1110  | dotlessi.smcp  | i.sc        (1)
>>>>>>>> 1170  | i.smcp         | i.sc        (2)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first one should have IMHO a different name.
>>>>>>>> The same name for two glyphs might be dangerous.
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> the fact that there are two i.sc in the font is suspicious ... best
>>> check the font in fontforge ... one never know what kind of things
>>> other programs do
>>
>> Hmm, FontForge glyphs naming corresponds to what we can observe in the
>> ConTeXt (doubled i.sc). My previous analysis was based on FontLab. I am
>> confused now...
>
> Actually, there are no names of these glyphs available in the font so they
> are calculated(!)
> Each of two programs uses a different method. FontLab method is based on
> layout tables - GPOS, GSUB, GDEF (it somehow detects that both glyps

that is okay to make names unique, although there can still be multiple 
variants so in fact i.smcp and i.ss01.4 are valid names then, but .smcp 
and .onum are not understood by name parsers (for adobe glyph names)

> differs). The FontForge method is unclear and seems to be buggy. But we

some kind of numbering would make more sense i.1 or so

> should blame rather the font itself as it is the primary cause of these
> problems (= missing glyph names).

indeed

Hans

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
     tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                              | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [***SPAM***] Incorrect internal font processing

[Jan Tosovsky]

On 2013-11-27 Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> > On 11/27/2013 10:20 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> > > On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> > >> On 11/27/2013 9:53 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> > >>> On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> > >>>> On 11/27/2013 8:44 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> during my attempts to patch the Palatino's dotless 'i' I found
> > >>>>> that this font is parsed incorrectly by ConTeXt.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Comparing index/name info of individual glyphs in the font
> > >>>>> software and resulting pala.tma file there is the following
> > >>>>> difference:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Index | Name - font    | Name - tma
> > >>>>> 1110  | dotlessi.smcp  | i.sc        (1)
> > >>>>> 1170  | i.smcp         | i.sc        (2)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The first one should have IMHO a different name.
> > >>>>> The same name for two glyphs might be dangerous.
> > >>>>
> >
> > the fact that there are two i.sc in the font is suspicious ... best
> > check the font in fontforge ... one never know what kind of things
> > other programs do
> 
> Hmm, FontForge glyphs naming corresponds to what we can observe in the
> ConTeXt (doubled i.sc). My previous analysis was based on FontLab. I am
> confused now...

Actually, there are no names of these glyphs available in the font so they
are calculated(!)
Each of two programs uses a different method. FontLab method is based on
layout tables - GPOS, GSUB, GDEF (it somehow detects that both glyps
differs). The FontForge method is unclear and seems to be buggy. But we
should blame rather the font itself as it is the primary cause of these
problems (= missing glyph names).

Jan

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [***SPAM***] Incorrect internal font processing

[Jan Tosovsky]

On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> On 11/27/2013 10:20 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> > On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> >> On 11/27/2013 9:53 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> >>> On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> >>>> On 11/27/2013 8:44 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> during my attempts to patch the Palatino's dotless 'i' I found 
> >>>>> that this font is parsed incorrectly by ConTeXt.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Comparing index/name info of individual glyphs in the font
> >>>>> software and resulting pala.tma file there is the following 
> >>>>> difference:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Index | Name - font    | Name - tma
> >>>>> 1110  | dotlessi.smcp  | i.sc        (1)
> >>>>> 1170  | i.smcp         | i.sc        (2)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The first one should have IMHO a different name, e.g. dotlessi.sc
> >>>>> (to keep conventions). The same name for two glyphs
> >>>>> might be dangerous.
> >>>>
> 
> the fact that there are two i.sc in the font is suspicious ... best
> check the font in fontforge ... one never know what kind of things
> other programs do

Hmm, FontForge glyphs naming corresponds to what we can observe in the
ConTeXt (doubled i.sc). My previous analysis was based on FontLab. I am
confused now...

Jan

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [***SPAM***] Incorrect internal font processing

[Hans Hagen]

On 11/27/2013 10:20 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
>> On 11/27/2013 9:53 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
>>> On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
>>>> On 11/27/2013 8:44 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> during my attempts to patch the Palatino's dotless 'i' I found that
>>>>> this font is parsed incorrectly by ConTeXt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Comparing index/name info of individual glyphs in the font software
>>>>> and resulting pala.tma file there is the following difference:
>>>>>
>>>>> Index | Name - font    | Name - tma
>>>>> 1110  | dotlessi.smcp  | i.sc        (1)
>>>>> 1170  | i.smcp         | i.sc        (2)
>>>>>
>>>>> The first one should have IMHO a different name, e.g. dotlessi.sc
>>>>> (to keep conventions). The same name for two glyphs
>>>>> might be dangerous.
>>>>
>>>> the font pala.ttf has two entries i.sc and i see no reference to
>>>> *.smcp
>>>
>>> There is no 'i.sc' glyph available according to the font software,
>>> only those .smcp, listed in the smcp6 table.
>>>
>>> As there are only .sc names in the TMA file, I suppose there is some
>>> kind of name normalization. But not very precise...
>>
>> mtxrun --script font --save pala.ttf
>
> I can confirm your observations. In this lua export there is no .smcp, but
> doubled i.sc records. Strange. There must be really some kind of
> normalization there...

the fact that there are two i.sc in the font is suspicious ... best 
check the font in fontforge ... one never know what kind of things other 
programs do

> It would be nice to review the corresponding part of the code as it is IMHO
> potentially dangerous.

afaik no magic there

Hans

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
     tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                              | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [***SPAM***] Incorrect internal font processing

[Jan Tosovsky]

On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> On 11/27/2013 9:53 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> > On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> >> On 11/27/2013 8:44 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> >>>
> >>> during my attempts to patch the Palatino's dotless 'i' I found that
> >>> this font is parsed incorrectly by ConTeXt.
> >>>
> >>> Comparing index/name info of individual glyphs in the font software
> >>> and resulting pala.tma file there is the following difference:
> >>>
> >>> Index | Name - font    | Name - tma
> >>> 1110  | dotlessi.smcp  | i.sc        (1)
> >>> 1170  | i.smcp         | i.sc        (2)
> >>>
> >>> The first one should have IMHO a different name, e.g. dotlessi.sc
> >>> (to keep conventions). The same name for two glyphs 
> >>> might be dangerous.
> >>
> >> the font pala.ttf has two entries i.sc and i see no reference to
> >> *.smcp
> >
> > There is no 'i.sc' glyph available according to the font software,
> > only those .smcp, listed in the smcp6 table.
> >
> > As there are only .sc names in the TMA file, I suppose there is some
> > kind of name normalization. But not very precise...
>
> mtxrun --script font --save pala.ttf

I can confirm your observations. In this lua export there is no .smcp, but
doubled i.sc records. Strange. There must be really some kind of
normalization there...

It would be nice to review the corresponding part of the code as it is IMHO
potentially dangerous. 

I felt obliged to report it :-)

Jan

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [***SPAM***] Incorrect internal font processing

[Hans Hagen]

On 11/27/2013 9:53 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
>> On 11/27/2013 8:44 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
>>>
>>> during my attempts to patch the Palatino's dotless 'i' I found that
>>> this font is parsed incorrectly by ConTeXt.
>>>
>>> Comparing index/name info of individual glyphs in the font software
>>> and resulting pala.tma file there is the following difference:
>>>
>>> Index | Name - font    | Name - tma
>>> 1110  | dotlessi.smcp  | i.sc        (1)
>>> 1170  | i.smcp         | i.sc        (2)
>>>
>>> (2) - this is a composite character which consist of dotlessi.smcp
>>> and dot.
>>>
>>> The first one should have IMHO a different name, e.g. dotlessi.sc (to
>>> keep conventions). The same name for two glyphs might be dangerous.
>>
>> the font pala.ttf has two entries i.sc and i see no reference to *.smcp
>
> The version of my Palatino is 5.0 (I run on Win7)
> It is located at c:/windows/fonts/pala.ttf

i checked on windows 8

> There is no 'i.sc' glyph available according to the font software, only
> those .smcp, listed in the smcp6 table.
>
> As there are only .sc names in the TMA file, I suppose there is some kind of
> name normalization. But not very precise...
>
>> (mtxrun --script --save pala.ttf)

mtxrun --script font --save pala.ttf

> This returns an error:
> c:/windows/fonts/pala.ttf:1: unexpected symbol
>
> Jan
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!
>
> maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
> webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
> archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
> wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
>


-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
     tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                              | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [***SPAM***] Incorrect internal font processing

[Jan Tosovsky]

On 2013-11-27 Hans Hagen wrote:
> On 11/27/2013 8:44 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> >
> > during my attempts to patch the Palatino's dotless 'i' I found that
> > this font is parsed incorrectly by ConTeXt.
> >
> > Comparing index/name info of individual glyphs in the font software
> > and resulting pala.tma file there is the following difference:
> >
> > Index | Name - font    | Name - tma
> > 1110  | dotlessi.smcp  | i.sc        (1)
> > 1170  | i.smcp         | i.sc        (2)
> >
> > (2) - this is a composite character which consist of dotlessi.smcp
> > and dot.
> >
> > The first one should have IMHO a different name, e.g. dotlessi.sc (to
> > keep conventions). The same name for two glyphs might be dangerous.
> 
> the font pala.ttf has two entries i.sc and i see no reference to *.smcp

The version of my Palatino is 5.0 (I run on Win7)
It is located at c:/windows/fonts/pala.ttf  

There is no 'i.sc' glyph available according to the font software, only
those .smcp, listed in the smcp6 table.

As there are only .sc names in the TMA file, I suppose there is some kind of
name normalization. But not very precise...

> (mtxrun --script --save pala.ttf)

This returns an error:
c:/windows/fonts/pala.ttf:1: unexpected symbol

Jan

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Re: [***SPAM***] Incorrect internal font processing

[Hans Hagen]

On 11/27/2013 8:44 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> during my attempts to patch the Palatino's dotless 'i' I found that this
> font is parsed incorrectly by ConTeXt.
>
> Comparing index/name info of individual glyphs in the font software and
> resulting pala.tma file there is the following difference:
>
> Index | Name - font    | Name - tma
> 1110  | dotlessi.smcp  | i.sc        (1)
> 1170  | i.smcp         | i.sc        (2)
>
> (2) - this is a composite character which consist of dotlessi.smcp and dot.
>
> The first one should have IMHO a different name, e.g. dotlessi.sc (to keep
> conventions). The same name for two glyphs might be dangerous.

the font pala.ttf has two entries i.sc and i see no reference to *.smcp

(mtxrun --script --save pala.ttf)

naming of glyphs is somewhat fuzzy and not always consistentent in fonts 
but i fear there is not much we can do here (apart from using palatino 
nova instead)

Hans


-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
     tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                              | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________