[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: fontname postfixes
>At 18:51 1999-02-21 +0100, you wrote:
>>>Well, some systems get along without :-)
>>>And it removes one more level of "user error" potential.
>>At first sight: yes
>>The map file may, however, specify slanting or narrowing
>>of fonts. Is there an alternative place where this information
>>can be taken from?
>I personally don't like algorithmic transformations of this nature.
>If the designer wanted a condensed version he/she would
>have designed one.
Not necessarily - fount designers work in a commercial world full of
> Ditto for slanted, smallcaps etc. The
>fake ones do not look typographically correct.
True, but they're better than nothing. It's useful to have the option
>In any case, this - unlike other things like reencoding - is PS
So how come you spend so much time trumpeting the ability of Y&Y TeX to do,
erm, fount re-encoding, without tying the user to a PostScript method?
> That is, many rasterizers do not provide a convenient
>mechanism (or any mechanism) to implement the equivalent of
>these PS transformations. So they tie you to a "PS only" world.
>There is another world out there.
>Keep in mind that what are called "PostScript fonts" on comp.text.tex
Some people on comp.text.tex call them PS founts. You don't, and I don't.
>are called "ATM fonts" in DTP newsgroups.
Likewise, only some people do this.
> Neither of which is good
>nomenclature. Type 1 would be better.
Not really - it's just another partial name with its own confusion. It
just happens to be a partial name that meets your political needs.
> And these Type 1 fonts
>are most often used *without* any PS interpreter.
Calling them PostScript Type 1 founts is best. It removes all the
ambiguity you get from calling them `PostScript' (only) or `Type 1' (often
abbreviated to T1) only.