Glyphs 2 Beta

Then please send a PDF copy of your receipt (which you received from the AppStore) to info (at) this website without www. To get a pdf copy, choose File > Print, and in the dialog, PDF > Mail PDF.

This is important as verification because we have no access to the sales data of the AppStore.

where this : choose File > Print, and in the dialog, PDF > Mail PDF. ?

In the menus of

I’m editing a font for a client. For the smallcaps names, instead of using,,,, etc., he used asmall, bsmall, csmall, dsmall. He’s also used PUA numbers…for argument’s sake, say E001, E002, E003, E004.

When I look at the font in the Glyphs 2 beta, the glyphs are named that way.

When I export the font, the names change to generic uniE001, uniE002, uniE003, uniE004.

Other glyph names also change. uni2117 is named Published and appears that way in Glyphs, it also changes to uni2117. The nbspace is named that, but it changes to uni00A0.

The prefs have “Keep glyph names from imported files” turned on.

This post isn’t about having Glyphs autobuild the smallcaps feature. I know the glyphs should be named,, etc. It is about Glyphs changing the glyph names, when it shouldn’t.

There’s nothing “wrong” with the way he named the smallcaps. It just isn’t Glyphs’ preferred naming scheme. I know I could rename all of the smallcaps characters to the “.sc” suffix…I’d prefer not to change his preferred naming scheme.

The point is, Glyphs shouldn’t be changing the glyph names if I have the “Keep glyph names from imported files” pref turned on.

If a font contains the fivesixths fraction, when Glyphs 2 (actually Glyphs and Glyphs 2 both do it) autobuilds the fraction feature, it includes 2 identical entries for “sub five slash six by fivesixths;”

The conversion of names on export is controlled by the “Use production names” in Glyphs 1 and the instance custom parameter “Don’t use Production Names” in Glyphs 2.

Names in the fonts are only important for certain PDF workflows to allow the reconstruction of the underling unicodes from a list of glyph names. This is more reliable with uniXXXX names and Adobe recommends using them.

fix it.

The conversion of names on export is controlled by the “Use production names” in Glyphs 1 and the instance custom parameter “Don’t use Production Names” in Glyphs 2.

I can’t find that setting in Glyphs 2. Where is it?

Disregard…found it. Would you consider moving it back to the prefs so that it doesn’t have to be set for every font? Just askin’…

As for the names…if I’m creating a font of my own, I try and follow accepted norms…if I’m editing a font for a client, I try and follow whatever their practice is, unless it’s “wrong”. The way he named his glyphs isn’t wrong…it just isn’t the recommended method. 8^)

The new way has the advantage that you can work on projects that need production names or not at the same time and you don't need to activate or deactivate the setting in the export dialog all the time.

Since the setting doesn’t carry over from font to font, you do have to set it for every font, and it’s hidden away in the instance custom parameter. It was much quicker and the setting was much more obvious in the old version.

You can copy and paste parameters into multiple instance at once.

In Glyphs 1, you could Option-drag a curve segment while locking the handle angle, whereas in G2 you can’t (it’s only a on-curve node selection). Could you add this feature? If not, how can I do it alternatively?

Alright. It was a beta testing suggestion. Glyphs is your app and you can create it however you wish. Moving the setting to somewhere more accessible was just a request.


I’m about to purchase the latest available version of Glyphs but if the #2.0 will be available in a month or so, that’s probably best to wait and not to spend additional money… (i’ve read about 50% though)

Have you considered option to offer free update for those who’s purchased v.1.4 in the last couple of months? If so, do you have a date in mind when #2.0 will become available?

No. If you buy a license now, it already is a valid Glyphs 2 license. The grace period started 1 July.

perfect. thanks!

Can I have G1-like master compatibility view? I want them overlapped in the right place, not in diagonal cascade.


Me too. or at least as an option. I work with three / four / more masters. With the new axis it could be doubled and diagonal view is space wasting in one window.

In G1, I could see accurately how each node transitions from one to another, which is more informative than just showing compatibility. Now it’s a mess of lines, especially when I select all.