[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: alanje@cogs.susx.ac.uk*Subject*: Re: Checksums (was re: 8r fonts)*From*: "Berthold K.P. Horn" <bkph@ai.mit.edu>*Date*: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:03:01 -0500 (EST)*CC*: P.T.H.Tutelaers@urc.tue.nl, tex-fonts@math.utah.edu*Flags*: 000000000000*In-reply-to*: <m0vz3qC-0000ZpC@csrj.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk> (message from AlanJeffrey on Mon, 24 Feb 97 17:05 GMT)*Reply-to*: bkph@ai.mit.edu

Piet Tutelaers writes: > > (1) what happens if WX is non-integer (as it is in all CM, AMS etc fonts > > --- or at least if it isn't fractional then you do not have good > > fonts!)? > Non-integers are currently *not* supported. They were not foreseen by Tom > Rokicki. Perhaps Berthold wants to learn us why we need them "uberhaupt? Because some fonts (such as most of Knuth's fonts) do not have integer advance widths when expressed in 1/1000-th of an em. And those CM fonts out there that round advance widths off, well they just are approximations, not the real thing! For example, in some CM fonts, Knuth worked mostly in multiples of 1/36 th of a point. Fontinst supports them, but only by brute force truncation after the decimal point. They were introduced by Adobe at the same time as MM fonts, and I suspect that that's not a coincidence! MM AFMs are generated by interpolating, so it's not surprising you need non-integer AFM values. That is not quote correct, I think. The CM fonts had AFM files with fractional widths ever since they first came out somewhere between 1988 and 1990. True, some software choked on those numbers, but then there is always software around that makes unwarranted assumptions. Alan.

**References**:**Checksums (was re: 8r fonts)***From:*Alan Jeffrey <alanje@cogs.susx.ac.uk>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Unicode and math symbols** - Next by Date:
**Re: Checksums (was re: 8r fonts)** - Prev by thread:
**Checksums (was re: 8r fonts)** - Next by thread:
**Re: Checksums (was re: 8r fonts)** - Index(es):