Unicode-Double-Mapping Omega
From two blogs
http://www.typophile.com/node/27984
feed://www.typophile.com/crss/node/27984
I learned that there is double mapping for Delta, Omega, mu; according to “AGLFN 1.6 (new) strict” Unicode-Name mapping table:
U+2206 “uni2206” - (for the INCREMENT)
U+0394 “Delta” - (for Greek Delta)
———————-
U+00B5 “uni00B5” - (for MICRO SIGN)
U+03BC “mu” - (for Greek Mu)
————————
U+2126 “uni2126” - (for OHM SIGN)
U+03A9 “Omega” - (for Greek Omega)
I have to transform an old postscript font (that was used for some phonetics) into an opentype font so that a large amount of text that was created in the postscript font (in various Mac-programs) can be used with opentype font both on Mac and PC. (At the same time I need to make sure that we still can use the old postscript font - or an appropriate updated new postscript font - because we need it for creation of “printing standard”-Acrobat4-pdfs that are accepted by printing companies.)
If I use Glyph names “Delta” and “mu”, all is fine with these letters.
However, for Omega neither the name “Omega” nor the name “uni2126” produces satisfactory results. In InDesign (Mac) it is basically OK, but in TextEdit and some other programmes on MacIntosh the phonetic letter does not show up, but rather the letter is transformed into Lucida Grande (Standard Font) and appears as an Omega in this Lucida Grande Font.
If I name the Glyph “uni03A9”, which is not according to “AGLFN 1.6 (new) strict”, then all works out fine on the MacIntosh.
I wonder why this is so and if this choice could create problems in the future - or on the PC. (I am using MacBookPro OSX.4.10)
I should add that I use the “MacOS Roman” encoding table in Fontlab.
Part II:
Also I would be happy if you could also suggest what is better:
1) Double encoding
Name: “Delta”; Unicode: 0394 + 2206
Name: “mu”; Unicode: 03BC + 00B5
Name: “uni03A9”; Unicode: 2126 + 03A9
or simple encoding for first two Glyphs
2)
Name: “Delta”; Unicode: 0394
Name: “mu”; Unicode: 03BC
Name: “uni03A9”; Unicode: 2126 + 03A9
or
3)
Name: “Delta”; Unicode: 0394
Name: “mu”; Unicode: 03BC
Name: “uni03A9”; Unicode: 03A9
or
4)
Name: “Delta”; Unicode: 0394
Name: “mu”; Unicode: 03BC
Name: “uni03A9”; Unicode: 2126
The fourth possibility, which is unusual, I consider because it seems to me that Adobe Programmes prefer Unicode 2126.
Thanks in advance for any advice
Volker
- Volker_S's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- rss
14.Sep.2007 12.03pm
this would have been better filed under the “Build” section.
I was hoping that someone like Adam or Miguel or John would have piped up before me, but i’m guessing they’re all busy with ATypI at the moment. Anyway, I recently dealt with this problem and found that To get things to work properly I had to give the letter names (Delta, Omega, mu) to the math glyphs and uni-names to the Greek letter glyphs. However, I was alerted that giving uni-names to other Greek letter glyphs (such as Alphatonos) will produce problems in Mac applications.
26.Sep.2007 9.48am
Thank you very much for the advice. You are right, I should have put it in “Build”, somehow it took me days to find where I actually put it (I was also a few days out of office).
I profited a lot from the your thread “Apple and CFF: what’s the deal?” http://www.typophile.com/node/37122 that you started a few minutes after you answered my question. It seems its best to hope that apple solves the issue with Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard.
It is somewhat a surprise “that to get things to work properly” you “had to give the letter names (Delta, Omega, mu) to the math glyphs and uni-names to the Greek letter glyphs”. From “AGLFN 1.6 (new) strict” Unicode-Name mapping table:
U+2206 “uni2206” - (for the INCREMENT)
U+0394 “Delta” - (for Greek Delta)
———————-
U+00B5 “uni00B5” - (for MICRO SIGN)
U+03BC “mu” - (for Greek Mu)
————————
U+2126 “uni2126” - (for OHM SIGN)
U+03A9 “Omega” - (for Greek Omega)
one would expect it just the other way . But it was also my experience with the “Omega”, although “Delta” and “mu” seemed kind of OK also the other way.
Volker