[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fontinst modifications
- To: Sebastian Rahtz <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Fontinst modifications
- From: Rebecca and Rowland <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:33:34 +0100
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-Reply-To: <26-Thu04Jun1998110530email@example.com>
- References: <199806041001.MAA03971@attila.uni-duesseldorf.de><4510-Thu04Jun1998080710firstname.lastname@example.org><199806041001.MAA03971@attila.uni-duesseldorf.de>
At 11:05 am +0100 4/6/98, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>Ulrik Vieth writes:
> > OK, I'll try to finish what I have been working on, and make it v1.8.
> > As for Lar's additions, they can go into v1.800, v1.801, v1.802, etc.
> > Once you have it all in .dtx format, you can easily add everybody's
> > favorite hacks enclosed in docstrip modules
>agreed, then. work towards 1.8, which will be a dtxed version of
>1.6/1.7, reintegrated with the docs. Then Lars can have a framework
>to work on
> > If you're talking about the 1.335 docs, they certainly need revising,
> > but I don't think they are completely obsolete. The examples using
> > "0" encoded fonts instead of "8a" are clearly misleading and should be
> > replaced, but the summary of docstrip commands presumably can be kept
> > with just minor touching up.
>do you have time even for this, though?
> > Anyway, I thought that working on the docs was Rowland's job.
>I thought Rowland was working on a *new* doc, not a revision of the
That's exactly what he is doing. I could do some minor mods to the current
docs; I think the best idea would be to work from the 1.509 source, correct
the bits that are wrong (mainly due to fontinst changing), add a little
extra and pointers to other documentation (fntguide.tex, simple-nfss.tex,
and the LGC) and leave it at that. I can probably do it in a day or so if
Can anyone point me at the fontinst 1.509 documentation source?