Re: psnfss and lw35nfss

[Thierry Bouche <Thierry.Bouche@ujf-grenoble.fr>]

Concernant « Re: psnfss and lw35nfss », Berthold K.P. Horn écrit :
 > 
 > Yes, which is LaTeX 2e support for *fonts*.  The fact that it is called
 > `PS'NFSS is a unfortunate --- just as it is unfortunate that Type 1 fonts
 > are called `PostScript' fonts in the TeX world (*).  

I'm far away from my domain of reasonnable knowledge to argue with you
on such technicalities, but I thought PFA meant Postscript Font Ascii,
the fact that so many legal type 1 fonts are NOT ATM fonts (being an
ATM font depends on versions of ATM as I already remarked, although
being a legal, printable,  T1 font is only something that didn't
evolve since level 1)

> There is no problem
 > for example writing `PSNFSS' support for TrueType fonts.
 >

if they have an afm. I used fontinst to get metrics for F3 fonts on
the Sun (with f3totex & MakeTeXPK, things were smooth:-)
 
i agree with sebastian that being interested in fonts means looking at
the printed output (essentially PDF or PS now), preview is an
auxiliary stage that has not to be perfectly accurate. thus my last
entry on dotlessj: if it is harmless to have charachters in the TFM
that do not match real charachters (like black boxes...) we could put
a warning in the TFM similar to what fontints does for missing chars
(could be: "warning, this font has not a genuine dotlessj  glyph, look at the
printed output to know if your driver is clever enough..."). the only
question is: would this crash some TeX system, or be so much
uncomfortable on some TeX systems that it is preferable not to do it?
If everybody argues while nobody tests actually, I don't see the point
in the discussion.

Have a nice day
   Thierry Bouche.       -----       thierry.bouche@ujf-grenoble.fr
          http://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/~bouche/