[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: checksum inconsistencies for virtual postscript fonts on CTAN
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: checksum inconsistencies for virtual postscript fonts on CTAN
- From: Rebecca and Rowland <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 04:11:34 +0100
- In-Reply-To: <199807272338.TAA12221@mail-out-3.tiac.net>
- References: <9740-Mon27Jul1998135814email@example.com><199807271232.MAA29572@mail-out-4.tiac.net><199807271037.MAA09988@late5.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de><199807271232.MAA29572@mail-out-4.tiac.net>
>At 01:58 PM 98/07/27 +0100, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>> > By the way, consider downloading lw35nfsx.zip instead of lw35nfss.zip
>> > It is 150k instead of 800k and provides most of the same capabilities
>> > at much lowered complexity. And no checksum nightmares between
>>The devil is in the detail, of course. That word "most".
>>LY1 is fine, great, but it isn't T1. The aim of the stuff I generated
>>was to support OT1 and T1 encoding.
>Oh sure, if your focus is on implementing OT1 and T1..
>But somehow this is a lower level detail of the _real_ aim, which is
>to provide ready-made accented characters so hyphenation can
>work in TeX. And that higher level aim is well-served by LY1 :-)
But it does mean you don't get a chance to use, say, small caps where no
`real' SC fount exists. I was under the impression that the *real* aim was
to allow you to use all the `good things' like faked SC (etc) *as well as*
gain access to ready-made accented characters. That last aim is better
served by T1 than LY1 if you've got a Windoze box and you don't use dvips
(or one of the commercial dvi drivers that support `proper' re-encoding).