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

Re: Bug in fontinst?

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
>> \installfont?
>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'?