[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bug in fontinst?
- To: Rebecca and Rowland <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Bug in fontinst?
- From: Alan Jeffrey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:10:41 -0500
- CC: Alan Jeffrey <email@example.com>, Fontinst mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Organization: DePaul University
- Sender: email@example.com
Rebecca and Rowland wrote:
> If only! Adobe's idea is that a small cap A is optically not the same as a
> letter `a' in the case of expert encoded founts, but that a small cap A is
> logically the same as a letter `a' in the case of SC & OsF founts.
Yes grumble mutter stick to their guns mutter.
> Indeed. What about Lars's idea? :
Probably as good as we're going to get.
> And would it perhaps be possible to add an extension to fontinst's command
> set so that you could force it to to a pltomtx conversion while using
I think this is going to happen rarely enough that we can just put an
\pltomtx command into the .tex file.
> Ah... If only this were true. LaTeX uses OT1 encoding by default; I for
> one have no idea how to create a LaTeX format that uses T1 encoding by
> default. We're going to be stuck with most people using OT1 for most
> things until this situation changes.
You can't change the format :-) One day the team will make T1 the
default, eventually, perhaps. At least the EC fonts are now out...
> It wouldn't be so bad if Adobe were any more consistent, would it?
It wouldn't hurt, but the main problem is that DEK and Adobe have
different ideas about what a glyph is. It's not like one of them is
wrong, they're just different...