🚀 go-pugleaf

} In a properly designed Type 1 font this is not a problem since there must be
} knots at all extrema of the outline; so all control points lie in or on the
} character outline bounding box.  But in some Type 1 fonts this is not the
} case, and it certainly isn't the case in the typical Type 3 font (if there
} is such a thing)...

> Is this really true?  I'm wondering about the case of rotated letterforms
> and slanted letterforms.  I think it's easy in such a case for there to
> be real extensions of the path beyond the BB of the control points.

Well, yes, but you can't use the bounding box (rectangle aligned with x and
y axes) of a rotated character to do what the original author wanted to
do, namely  mirror characters about the character's horizontal or vertical
axis. You need a bounding box with sides parallel to the original x and y
axes of the space in which the character is defined...