Re: Autohinting concerns [was: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing.]

[David Turner]

Hi Tom,

> 
> My concern has to do with global hints.  Glyph hints can probably be
> safely ignored, but global hints turn on/off overshhoot supression, in
> addition to giving some information about standard stem widths.
> 
> In addition, I know a Type 1 font (no need to go to CID fonts to get
> these) can also have counter control hints, but only if certain
> key/value pairs are defined in the Private dictionary, and that the
> hints which are counter controlled do not fall with the zones defined
> by /BlueValues.  Which is a global hint structure.
> 
> I guess I will be reading the autohint white paper shortly and
> perusing the charstrings parser/autohint code to make sure my concerns
> are nullified.
> 
> Tom
> 

All I can say for now is that it is, for now, possible to use the
global hints defined in a Type 1 font and pass them to the auto-hinter
(instead of asking it to recompute them). This is limited to the
standard width/height + stem snap widths/heights

> On Sat, 1 Jul 2000, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> 
> >
> > > The "type1z" hinter simply loads the glyphs, and it's _definitely_
> > > faster with all the benchmarks I've tried.. Further, the "type1"
> > > hinter is really crummy compared to the auto-hinter..
> >
> > My knowledge of Type 1 hints is very minor...  Does the auto-hinter
> > completely ignore hints?  This would be not optimal, I think.
> >
> >
> >     Werner
> >