[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: fontinst with 8y.etx
- To: Thierry Bouche <Thierry.Bouche@ujf-grenoble.fr>
- Subject: Re: fontinst with 8y.etx
- From: "Berthold K.P. Horn" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:42:14 -0400
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-Reply-To: <199806111411.QAA13180@mozart.ujf-grenoble.fr>
- References: <357F1B04.email@example.com><199806101548.RAA15979@attila.uni-duesseldorf.de><357F1B04.firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Question what happens if you write an 8y.etx, i.e. LY1 encoding file...
> Answer: It works perfectly, fontinst runs happily and does everything...
> ... except that it uses 8y instead of 8r fonts...
> Does this sound like an interesting approach that might
> convince skeptics...
> As far as I can see, using 8y instead of 8r is absolutely equivalent
> from the point of view of fontinst.
Well, in Santa Barbara I proposed 8y as the base, but wasn't
convincing enough, so the duplicate characters were removed
and some other changes made to `water down' 8y, and that
resulted in 8r.
Of course, my personal interest is not in whether 8y or 8r
is used as the basis for something else (like OT1 or T1+TS1),
but in having an encoding I can use directly. And 8y works better
in that role.
As it turned out, it also works better as regards
Acrobat (Although, there seems to be nothing that works
absolutely reliably with the Macintosh Reader, which is brain-dead
AFAIK --- quite suprising, since Adobe's Mac software used to be
flawless, while their Windows attempts were mediocre).
Berthold K.P. Horn
Cambridge, MA mailto:email@example.com