[Fontinst] Bug in fontinstversion{1.927}

[Peter Dyballa]

Am 03.01.2005 um 17:53 schrieb Lars Hellström:

> Also, I have to ask: Is the font you're working with really a "Sun
> LucidaSans Bold Typewriter", as is the Fontname scheme interpretation 
> of
> 'slsbt'?

Well, it depends on your (mis)interpretation. The fonts contain a 
Copyright from Bigelow & Holmes, but they come with Java. And for free. 
Java comes from Sun. Since I am not sure whether the TrueType fonts use 
exactly the same shaped glyphs as any PostScript versions around I have 
this working title in use. Besides this: TrueType uses other mechanisms 
to find the outlines of the glyphs -- so they have to be different than 
the PostScript ones. And this their name must preserve.

>> and make of them a sorted list of unique PostScript glyph
>> names. The same for 8r.enc. A bit of comm -- and the difference is
>> almost 160 names!
>
> Sounds plausible. About 60 of these are probably letters that are not 
> found
> in the classical Western European fonts but can be decently 
> constructed by
> fontinst. Another bunch of glyphs have traditionally been found in 
> Expert
> fonts, so it might be more fair to compare T1+OT1+TS1 against 8r+8x, 
> but
> indeed there is a difference.

OK, I'll do it! I only have no 8x.enc file around ... Is it really 
standardized or is it just created for an expert PS font to reflect its 
opulence?

>> and did imagine I'd write these
>> two files:
>>
>> 	name="8+.etx"
>
> That looks OK. No need to quote me as an author. 8+ is probably not the
> best name, though (looks a bit like it was generated by mistake).

No, I chose 8+ deliberately to show it has to do with 8r but goes a bit 
beyond. It can be 8rplus or 8s or 8tt (for TrueType) ... The final name 
is not important for some evaluation. (At least *you* are motivating 
and giving the right pointers!)


>> 	name="8+.mtx"
>
> This one does not make sense. Take for example
>
>   \ifisglyph{Abreve}\then
>      \unfakable{Abreve}
>   \Fi

I'm not understanding all the code. From looking on the character 
tables and comparing them with the proofs that t1testpage makes from 
the 'original' PS font I was prone to believe that fontinst preferred 
to construct a whole set of accented characters -- because you would 
not find them in PostScript. Hungarumlaut is badly constructed, but 
this too is still a preliminary opinion, a prejudice. Some days (or 
weeks) later I might have a more solid basis. My opinion of the code 
above is: if there is a real glyph Abreve take it and don't fake it. I 
thought it would happen in two steps during 
\installfonts/\installfamily stage: first take the glyphs from the 
extra set, then those from the "r"egular set and fake all that's 
missing. But I am wrong: it's \reencodefont that would use 8+.etx! 
8+.mtx is kind of a profile to teach \installfamily to handle some 
glyphs a bit different when making the final OT1, T1, or TS1 encoded 
virtual font.

After some years of uninterrupted fontinst practise I'll show zero 
tolerance to such faults!

I'll try to make some progress the enxt days and shall do some 
documentation in 8+.mtx on where these glyphs appear in. That's 
probably the right place for this kind of enumeration, isn't it?

--
Greetings

   Pete

The human brain operates at only 10% of its capacity. The rest is 
overhead for the operating system.