Re: fontname postfixes

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

[snip]

>>>In any case, this - unlike other things like reencoding - is  PS specific.
>
>>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?
>
>I think you misunderstood (or maybe I misunderstand your response).

I misunderstood - apologies.

[snip]

>>>  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.
>
>Just like Adobe's calling them "font programs" serves their polticial
>needs :-)?

Well...   They are, aren't they?

>>>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.
>
>OK, you win, I will call them "PS Type 1" to avoid all possible confusion.
>Even though that name suggests to all Unix people that you need PS to use
>them :-)

Well...  Since Unix people don't have access to ATM, who can blame them for
this misconception?  You can't avoid *ALL* confusion, but you can minimise
it.

Rowland.