[latexrefman] [latexrefman-commits] [SCM] latexrefman updated: r590 - trunk

[Hefferon, James S.]

Ah, personally I'd remove them.  I'll do it next time I work on the file (start of school here so it may be a while), or you can.

----------------
https://archive.org/details/DontBeaS1947
________________________________
From: Vincent Belaïche <vincent.belaiche at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 5:57:46 PM
To: Hefferon, James S.; Karl Berry
Cc: latexrefman at tug.org
Subject: Re: [latexrefman] [latexrefman-commits] [SCM] latexrefman updated: r590 - trunk

Hello both,


I fixed the % spacing, and restored the cmss & cmtt.

I also took the opportunity to do some slight code factorization to
common.texi.


Now, as far as removing the percentage is concerned, I was not sure what
to do. I am not really opinionated : these percentage could be removed
if Karl really has a point on that.

The only thing I am sure about is that we should not spend too much time
discussing that.

As I wrote, my personal view is that they don't do any harm as the
description says that they are just examplificatory, and now I know that
they are from the Holy Companion by Saint Mittelbach & Goosens, I am all
the less inclined to blasphemize any longer about them :-D.

   V.


Le 22/08/2017 à 19:17, Hefferon, James S. a écrit :
>
>
> The percentage numbers come from the Companion, p 414.
>
>
> These numbers do seem to be some kind of convention; I see them in
> articles about the CSS 3 font-stretch property.
>
>
> But they can go, for sure.
>
>
> Jim
>
>
> ----------------
> https://archive.org/details/DontBeaS1947
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Vincent Belaïche <vincent.belaiche at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:15:36 PM
> *To:* Karl Berry; Hefferon, James S.
> *Cc:* latexrefman at tug.org
> *Subject:* Re: [latexrefman] [latexrefman-commits] [SCM] latexrefman
> updated: r590 - trunk
> Hello Karl & Jim,
>
> Sorry for the @dmn{}, in French we have it, after all this is a unit,
> isn't it :
>
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pourcentage#Notation
>
> I will remove this @dmn{} as well as restoring the cmss/cmtt. cmr is
> still there, only cmss & cmtt were removed, maybe to encourage the
> switch to Latin Modern --- I don't know, I am not the one who removed
> them.
>
> The percents were added by Jim in r361, see
> http://svn.gnu.org.ua/viewvc/latexrefman/trunk/latex2e.texi?r1=361&r2=360
>
> Personnally, I don't think that it was a bad idea, because anyway the
> current text says that this is just informative, and not followed by all
> font.
>
> The cmss & cmtt were removed by Jim in r362, see
> http://svn.gnu.org.ua/viewvc/latexrefman/trunk/latex2e.texi?r1=361&r2=362
>
> I agree with you Karl that  for consistency cmss & cmtt should be
> restored.
>
>    Vincent.
>
> Le 22/08/2017 à 00:50, Karl Berry a écrit :
> > Yes, cmr/cmss/cmtt should be in (restored to) the \fontfamily table,
> > as far as I can see.
> >
> >      + at tab Ultra condensed, 50 at dmn{}%
> >
> > Any extra before % is not conventional in English.
> >
> > Inependently of that, I don't see that those percentages are useful to
> > state. I am skeptical that there is a single font in the world which
> > follows them. 112.5%? Who are we kidding? I'm not sure who added them,
> > but if it was me, I think I was wrong to do so.  -k
> Jim added them.
>
> ---
> L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le
> logiciel antivirus Avast.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>


---
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/latexrefman/attachments/20170822/67a5fa10/attachment-0001.html>