[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Long (font) filenames
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Long (font) filenames
- From: Lars Hellström <Lars.Hellstrom@math.umu.se>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 14:36:04 +0200
- In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <199806221300.JAA12946@hub.cs.umb.edu>
Sorry I haven't contributed anything to the debate since I started it, but
my posting of that long proposal happened to be quickly followed by my
going on holiday (during which my connections to the Net will be bit
sparse, at best).
Still, at the risk of being totally out of sync with most other people on
this list, I shall try to make a summary of (what I percieve to be) the
state of the discussion, as of July 7th (which was when I last had a chance
to download any mail; sigh!).
Starting with, as would seem proper, the first part of the proposal, it
would seem that I was right about everything except the CDs. Especially
Rowland's mail saying
>At 9:00 am -0400 22/6/98, K. Berry wrote:
>> money). I'd be happy with dropping the 8+3 limit if a way of exceeding
>> this limit was freely available to all MS-DOS users. If no such
>>Well, Lars' proposal (of making the long filename into subdirectories)
>>would work on the old DOS machines.
>Certainly; I'm not really qualified to have an opinion, but Lars's
>suggestion strikes me as excellent.
>I was thinking more of dropping the 8+3 limit `for real', rather than
>working round it.
was nice to see, although it also points out that this list is not really
the place to continue that discussion. Hence, does anyone here know of any
TeX-on-DOS-platform mailing list (or the like) where the first part of the
proposal could be sent for a more adequate treatment?
There was though the little the little thing about the CDs, concerning the
nature of which I am now pretty confused as it seems that they are not (as
I assumed) simply a download of CTAN. I would apprechiate it if anyone
would take the time to explain to me what these things actually contain!
Leaving off the first part then (which is not really of interest in this
list, but still serves a place in the proposal as it demonstrates that long
font filenames can be supported by an 8+3 characters file system) and
moving over to the second, I can only note that this seems to have been put
on hold while awaiting a new version of Berry's "Filenames for fonts". This
is probably for the best; I would trust that KB can produce a basis for a
further discussion that is quite superior to my own poor contribution.