[Fontinst] title graphic

[Lars Hellström]

At 20.51 +0200 2005-06-16, Stephan Hennig wrote:
>Lars Hellström schrieb:
>> At 19.52 +0200 2005-06-15, Stephan Hennig wrote:
>
>> Would it be much difficult to make use of e.g. the boxes.mp
>> macros to draw the same picture?
>
>No, I did that already.

Excellent!


>>>(ii) Due to MetaObj
>>
>> Yes, that could be an issue. The MP code looks like it depends on a rather
>> high  level tool, and it feels a bit like this high level setting
>> contributes to the code complexity as much as the actual content of the
>> illustration.
>
>So you prefer coding postscript then? :)

No, but not because of the lack of high-level constructs. A couple of
months ago I did some work on generating diagrams in PDF, and what bothered
me most (in comparison with MetaPost) was the lack of equation-solving;
that's such a wonderful feature! You apparently managed to do without it,
however, so perhaps I should throw it back at you:
So you prefer to micro-manage MetaPost then? :)


>>>(iii) Instead of Helvetica and Palatino URW clones are used.
>>
>> For the metrics, you mean? (The actual fonts used will be whatever the PS
>> interpreter uses for Helvetica and Palatino-Italic anyway.) Is there even
>> any difference? (If they're clones, then there shouldn't be any, eh?)
>
>What I meant was that if you're using Adobe Helvetica somewhere else in
>the fontinst manual, also URW clones are included in the document since
>they are embedded in the graphic (correct me if I'm wrong). [1]

They're not embedded in the EPS, and currently the generation path for the
PDF fontinst manual is good old PDF <- PS <- DVI, so that wouldn't be an
issue.


>> Providing ready-made EPS and PDF is a good idea when presenting pictures
>> like this
>
>To reduce list traffic I uploaded alternative sources and eps|pdf here:
><URL:http://home.arcor.de/stephanhennig/Downloads/o-roadmap.zip>
>
>
>> Would you be
>> prepared to contribute this to the fontinst distribution? (Or to state it
>> more legally: Do you permit licensing this under the LPPL?)
>
>That was my original intention. Is there any standard phrase that needs
>to be included in the source code? I couldn't find any in fontinst.tex.

No, there probably isn't; the legalese has never been a priority in this
project.

Lars Hellström