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

Re: `limitations' of OzTeX (was: fontinst with 8y.etx)

Melissa O'Neill wrote:
> problem again stems from those three glyphs above. There seems to be
> disagreement on what the three glyphs that 8y calls `cwm', `nbspace'
> and `sfthyphen' should be called.  Adobe refers to `nbspace' as

Every supplier has its own "standard" here - due to specific interests
as ususal...

> `nobreakspace' (e.g. in Adobe's chsttabl.pdf) but usually replaces it
> with space in encodings, `sfthyphen' is sometimes called `softhyphen'
> (e.g.  on the HP LaserJet 4000) and `cwm'(*) is sometimes called
> `compwordmark' (although I can't remember where right now).
>           * In fact, I've never seen a `compwordmark'/`cwm' glyph in any
>             font, so I have no idea what it might look like, or whether it
>             really needs to be in 8y.

Well, that's no surprize: cwm looks like nothing! It's zero width and
would print less than a space on paper ;-)

> specification -- and neither has sfthyphen, nbspace or cwm.
> Given the amount of naming diagreement, I wonder if there is any good
> reason to include these glyphs in 8y.

The reason are simply of technical nature and not intended to drive you
crazy! nbspace stands for a repeated entry of space, actually to avoid a
repeated entry in the encoding, stfhyphen has the same function
originally but can be utilized by Tex for either hanging hyphenation or
improved hyphenation of compound words for the English Latex version.
The presence of cwm is used for some internal processing in the kern/lig
machinery of Tex.
You see every little bit has a purpose...

Hilmar Schlegel

mailto:hshlgaii@mailszrz.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE?Subject=Mail response