[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bug in fontinst?
- To: Alan Jeffrey <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Bug in fontinst?
- From: Rebecca and Rowland <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 01:11:38 +0100
- Cc: Fontinst mailing list <email@example.com>
- In-Reply-To: <361168F1.BD697AE3@cs.depaul.edu>
At 12:10 am +0100 30/9/98, Alan Jeffrey wrote:
>Rebecca and Rowland wrote:
>> If only! Adobe's idea is that a small cap A is optically not the same as a
>> letter `a' in the case of expert encoded founts, but that a small cap A is
>> logically the same as a letter `a' in the case of SC & OsF founts.
>Yes grumble mutter stick to their guns mutter.
>> Indeed. What about Lars's idea? :
>Probably as good as we're going to get.
>> And would it perhaps be possible to add an extension to fontinst's command
>> set so that you could force it to to a pltomtx conversion while using
>I think this is going to happen rarely enough that we can just put an
>\pltomtx command into the .tex file.
>> Ah... If only this were true. LaTeX uses OT1 encoding by default; I for
>> one have no idea how to create a LaTeX format that uses T1 encoding by
>> default. We're going to be stuck with most people using OT1 for most
>> things until this situation changes.
>You can't change the format :-)
Of course you can. It's what all those .cfg files are for. My default
format includes two sets of hyphenation patterns, rather than the standard
> One day the team will make T1 the
>default, eventually, perhaps. At least the EC fonts are now out...
If `they' had the sense God gave a grasshopper, they'd supply instructions
on how to change the format to use T1 encoding by default.
>> It wouldn't be so bad if Adobe were any more consistent, would it?
>It wouldn't hurt, but the main problem is that DEK and Adobe have
>different ideas about what a glyph is. It's not like one of them is
>wrong, they're just different...
How do you mean, `different ideas about what a glyph is'?