[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: checksum inconsistencies for virtual postscript fonts on CTAN
- To: "Berthold K.P. Horn" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: checksum inconsistencies for virtual postscript fonts on CTAN
- From: Rebecca and Rowland <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 04:50:10 +0100
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-Reply-To: <199807281129.LAA11679@mail-out-4.tiac.net>
- References: <email@example.com><199807272338.TAA12221@mail-out-3.tiac.net><9740-Mon27Jul1998135814firstname.lastname@example.org><199807271232.MAA29572@mail-out-4.tiac.net><199807271037.MAA09988@late5.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de><199807271232.MAA29572@mail-out-4.tiac.net>
>At 04:11 AM 98/07/28 +0100, Rebecca and Rowland wrote:
>>>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).
>(1) Anyone using fake smallcaps would also steal sheep.
And why not? Anyone stealing sheep round here deserves some
congratulations: it's normally considered quite tricky in the middle of a
town (spqr: breathe not a word about what sort of town it is).
>(2) Times and many other fonts have real smallcaps.
> The files posted in lw35nfsx (if you had only looked) link correctly to
That's fine if you're one of the tiny minority who have spent money on the
appropriate founts. If you just have access to the `standard 35' PS
founts, you can't.
>(3) The solution you describe is a `PS only' solution, Which is very limiting.
What a curious notion. I seem to manage all that without using PS. Why do
you think it's PS only?