Re: How can I check for the existence of a glyph in TeX?

[Rebecca and Rowland <rebecca@astrid.u-net.com>]

At 7:09 pm +0100 15/9/98, Berthold K.P. Horn wrote:
>At 06:40 PM 98/09/15 +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:

>>(well, perhaps he would allow PS Type 3 fonts as well),
>
>No.  PS Type 3 fonts are not useful because ATM doesn't understand them.

I see.  So the fact that I can use PS Type 3 founts on my Mac with OzTeX
means that they're not useful, does it?  Sorry, I forgot: you're defining
`useful' as `ATM compatible'.  Well, some of us live in a world which works
on a different basis.  `Useful' to me means `something I can use'.  This
means it doesn't have to work with ATM.  My kettle isn't ATM compatible,
but it's useful.  Try making tea with Adobe software: it's a bit of a
non-starter.

[snip]
>>>Mac text fonts do not actually have any of those glyphs.
>
>>This is usually not true. The glyhps does not exist in the PS fonts, so
>>they are mapped in from Symbol when printing is to a PS printer,
>
>which is what I said right :-)?

No, you said that Mac text founts do not actually have any of those glyphs.
You didn't say anything about the restricted case of using a subset of Mac
text founts printing on a PS printer.  Precision is very important.

>>but they do exist in the bitmapped NFNT fonts,
>
>If the NFNT bitmap does not match the actual font it is wrong.
>And if it does what is the point of talking about the NFNT?

What about FOND resources?  Anyway, some Mac founts *do* contain those
glyphs I mentioned.  Geneva is one, I think.  Chicago certainly has some
strange glyphs.

>>which is what is usually  seen on the screen.
>
>Not in my case.  I try and avoid bitmaps.  You can't reencode them.
>It's too bad they are needed at all because of the low screen resolution on
>the Mac (72 dpi).

Oh for God's sake!  Get real!  That 72 dpi is an OS assumption of the
screen resolution.  No current Mac is forced to use 72dpi, alright?  If you
use 72dpi as the logical resolution, you get true wysiwyg.  Current Mac
screens are obviously not restricted to 72dpi.  Macs can have high screen
resolution.  And FWIW, when Macs were launched, that same `low resolution'
of 72dpi was considered very high resolution.

Why not try and be accurate for once?

[snip]
>Most applications on the Mac and in Windows have trouble with char code 0 -
>31.

Do they really?  What applications on the Mac are you thinking of?

[snip]

Rowland.