<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Ulrike Fischer wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:fzo1peneqcgk$.dlg@nililand.de"><br>
<pre wrap="">It will *allow* him to use 1000 fonts. But what exactly should he
then do to actually *use* the one specific font family he wants to
use? Read through the 300 page documentation of your AFMPFX to find
the right command combination?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, of course not, because all he will need to know is the name of
the font that he wants to use. The documentation (which may run to
ten pp at most) would be entirely expressed in terms of "the font
that you want to use", which of course he will express in plain text
as (e.g.,) "BrushScriptX-Italic" and not via some ridiculous 8+3
naming convention that Noah already considered primitive when he was
designing the lettering for his ark ...<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:fzo1peneqcgk$.dlg@nililand.de">
<pre wrap="">Why should Rolf have to care about the font format? He wants to load
a font family by name and not have to do some research on font
technology first. Why should he have to fight with types like tfm,
vf, pfb, pfa, mf, otf, ttf, ttc? Has word an "otf fonts" and "ttf
fonts" and "ttc fonts" menu?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ideally he would not have to, but unless I am very much mistaken,
internally there are different routes through which conventional
(TFM+PK), type-1 (AFM+PFA/B), TTF/OTF fonts and so on are handled,
so to make the task manageable I envisaged these being split out
into separate packages. But of course there is no reason at all why
these could not then be unified these into one single package called
(e.g.,) "fonts.sty". But to address a point from your earlier
message :<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">What would be the gain? I would have to load
\usepackage{afmpfx}
which would contain thousands of code lines to setup code for
hundreds of fonts I don't want to use and I would have to use
additionally some command to select roboto. \usepackage{roboto} is
less typing, does the same and would load only a small number of
code lines.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<b><i>Why</i></b> would it [necessarily] "contain thousands of code
lines to setup code for hundreds of fonts" ? Why would it not set
up pro-forma code for each distinct font format and then use \csname
...\endcsname to invoke that factored-out generic code for the
particular font(s) that Rolf wants to use ?<br>
-- <br>
<i>** Phil.</i><br>
</body>
</html>