[XeTeX] Re: [MacTeX] so, what to do about fonts? (was XeTeX)

[Bruno Voisin]

Le 15 avr. 04, à 14:52, Jonathan Kew a écrit :

> The answer may depend partly on what you mean by "work"; the basic 
> ability to access one default glyph for each supported character, or 
> the ability to make use of the potentially complex AAT behavior in 
> some of the fonts? "Work" like they work in Word, or "work" like they 
> work in TextEdit?
>
> For me, having an interest in complex scripts (and not wishing to 
> reimplement all the behavior of each AAT font using OTPs, convert), 
> the AAT support is crucial. Others may view this very differently.

The ideal, IMHO, but that's probably far too much work, and that's also 
made practically impossible by the instability/state-of-flu/closed 
development of Omega, would be a software that would both "embed" Omega 
(i.e. understand the Omega syntax, can work with all the files Omega 
works with) and at the same time could use Apple fonts based on AAT and 
on the present XeTeX interface.

A bit like what XeTeX does presently for standard TeX: can work with 
TFM files and CM fonts, and at the same time can use Apple fonts and 
AAT concepts. Or like what Textures does: can work with CM fonts, and 
at the same time with Classic Apple fonts.


Le 15 avr. 04, à 15:05, William F. Adams a écrit :

> All we have to do is wait or Jonathan to nail down some minor niggling 
> issues, bundle the source, work up a script to build a LaTeX format 
> and provide LaTeX (and other) packages/macros for using the fonts all 
> in an iInstaller package.
>
> I'll do that right after I finish the TUG2003 proceedings if no one 
> beats me to it. No one commented on my \typespecification idea --- is 
> there no room for improvement? Or did it seem not workable?

I'm not sure it would be appropriate to rush like this before releasing 
XeTeX widely. IMHO it's necessary, before release, to make sure XeTeX 
works with common LaTeX packages, write driver files (as Ross proposed) 
when needed, write exemple files and documentation regarding use of AAT 
fonts in LaTeX, solve issues of file size and process time for XeTeX, 
fix all reported bugs, test all this as extensively as possible in a 
reasonable amount of time, etc.

I'm insisting on LaTeX not because I'm a fan of it (actually I prefer 
the elegance and informal syntax of plain TeX, and of the very few I 
know of ConTeXt), but because it's critical for wide adoption and 
because for most people TeX _is_ LaTeX. It's impossible to do without 
it in the scientific community, where emphasis is on collaborative 
work, and it's also a requirement of many scientific publishers.

Anybody planning to use XeTeX routinely will expect it to do anything 
that his/her present TeX implementation/incarnation does, and add 
Apple-specific functionality on top of it.

Releasing XeTeX widely as it is now, or before doing all the above, 
would result, I think, in endless "bug" reports saying in essence: "I 
could do this with (La)TeX, with XeTeX it's no longer working, what did 
I do wrong?" or even "I can do this with standard (La)TeX, with XeTeX I 
can't, that cannot be tolerated!". It could be counter-productive.

>> Gerben, did you hear back from Apple on the licensing issue involved 
>> with converting the fonts?
>
> While this'd be nice, I don't see how Apple could do this --- they 
> license a lot of the fonts from outside sources who've probably set 
> the terms, and I doubt Apple would backtrack on their traditional 
> handling of fonts (lock down and restrict them to limit redistribution 
> / re-use).

I still feel unconvinced by this rather restrictive interpretation of 
Apple's license. It would be nice if we (this list) could have an 
unofficial statement from Apple clarifying this once and for good, 
either way the statement would be.


My .02 €.

Bruno
_______________________________________________
MacTeX mailing list
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/mactex