[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Again, should use XLFD
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Again, should use XLFD
- From: witr@rwwa.COM
- Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 19:01:01 -0400
- Flags: 000000000000
I've said it before, and nobody agreed with me.
I'll say it again, and nobody will agree with me.
Fonts should be named using XLFD, and translated into actual font file
names just like X does it, using font directories.
All of these ad-hoc font naming schemes are inferior to this approach.
This is proven by the fact that new schemes are being decided/developed
perenially, whereas X has had the same fine method for almost 5 years
I'll never understand why TeX types insist upon re-re-re-inventing
Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
R.W. Withrow Associates, 21 Railroad Ave, Swampscott MA 01907-1821 USA