[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: fontinst with 8y.etx
- To: Hilmar Schlegel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: fontinst with 8y.etx
- From: Thierry Bouche <Thierry.Bouche@ujf-grenoble.fr>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:11:33 +0200 (MET DST)
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- In-Reply-To: <357F1B04.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <199806101548.RAA15979@attila.uni-duesseldorf.de><357F1B04.email@example.com>
I'm trying to generalize the audience of this debate.
The question is: why did we choose 8r rather than something else.
The main question at the time i write seems to be: is there an
encoding that could insure portability of PDF files across platforms
(including Windows & Macs...) that would be functionnally equivalent
to 8r (i.e. making visible all adobe 228 glyphs + ff-ligs when
For instance: is there a way to combine LY1 & Melissa's Mac mods?
Concernant « Re: fontinst with 8y.etx », Hilmar Schlegel écrit : «
» Ulrik Vieth wrote:
» > Thierry wrote:
» > > BTW, if LY1 is functionnally equivalent to 8r, why 8r ?
» > Good question. Personally, I find 8y (or LY1) slightly less arbitrary
» > then 8r. Both provide access to all the glyphs available in standard
» > PostScript fonts, they just use a slightly different arrangement.
» No, there is a an essential difference: LY claims to be Acrobat-Reader
» proof when making PDF. If that works in any case, esp. on a Mac is not
» perfectly sure but it circumvents the most obvious traps.
Well, does there exist something working proprely on unices, macoses &
Doesn't that whole question seem surrealistic to you, talking of some
_portable_ doc format???!!
» On the other side it is promoted with the argument to avoid the need of
» VF - which is only important for Dvi-interpreters not capable of doing
» VF and not relevant in the context of fontinst.
This is also the reason for fontinst making ligfull 8r TFMs. That was
a request from a Mac user, as far as i remember.
» > Since hardly anybody seems to be interested in typesetting directly
» > with 8r, while OTOH Y&Y does promote typesetting with 8y (regardless
» > whether or not you may find that adequate for non-expertized fonts),
» Well, there is the difficulty that fontinst generated LY encoded TFMs
» are quite different from those made by the Y&Y tools. This leads under
» certain circumstances to a big processing overhead due to the fact that
» fontinst is rounding metric data to a grid of 1 AFM unit while the Y&Y
» tools do not round metric data.
but y&y doesn't put its ton of LY1 TFMs on CTAN, and they don't
conform to karl berry names?
» Also due to different checksums it is
» not straight forward to mix "raw" fonts from Y&Y and VFs made by
this is indeed a problem, meaning that y&y LY1 TFMs could be of some
use to other users, but fontinst's TFMs could'nt be used with an y&y
» > using fontinst to install 7t/8t/8c on top of 8y (and 8x, if available)
» > might turn out a compromise that could make eveyone happy? WDYT?
» From the Tex view it is completely irrelevant which
» all-Standard-Roman-Character-Set encoding is used. For the purpose in
» question it is however necessary or at least of desire to add a few
» things to LY1 to make complete T1 fonts from fonts which provide some
» additional characters. This applies especially to Eng and A, E-ogonek
» which are usually not provided as composites. Postscript level 3 fonts
» will provide them.
» LY is not optimal in the sense that it contains several repeated codes
» and therefore has less space for additional useful characters which some
» fonts might provide - the advantage is mainly to cover the majority of
» standard fonts without the need of a special installation.
» If one keeps the little details in mind LY1+ works just fine.
that is: as fine as 8r?