Table 120 of the PDF-2.0 spec (Entries common to all font descriptors) describes the MissingWidth entry as "The width to use for character codes whose widths are not specified in a font dictionary’s Widths array." Since composite fonts do not have a Widths array, the description could be seen to imply that MissingWidth specifies the width of all characters in a composite font. To be on the safe side, would it make sense to prefix the description with "In a simple font, ..."?
Table 120 of the PDF-2.0 spec (Entries common to all font descriptors) describes the
MissingWidthentry as "The width to use for character codes whose widths are not specified in a font dictionary’sWidthsarray." Since composite fonts do not have aWidthsarray, the description could be seen to imply thatMissingWidthspecifies the width of all characters in a composite font. To be on the safe side, would it make sense to prefix the description with "In a simple font, ..."?