[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Behaviour of \latinfamily
- To: Ulrik Vieth <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Behaviour of \latinfamily
- From: Thierry Bouche <Thierry.Bouche@ujf-grenoble.fr>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 14:45:05 +0200 (MET DST)
- Cc: Thierry.Bouche@ujf-grenoble.fr, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-Reply-To: <199805291221.OAA29381@attila.uni-duesseldorf.de>
- References: <199805291216.OAA12673@mozart.ujf-grenoble.fr><199805291221.OAA29381@attila.uni-duesseldorf.de>
Concernant « Re: Behaviour of \latinfamily », Ulrik Vieth écrit : «
» Incidently, I find the 7d-encoding names for OsF rather misleading.
» If you look at the Adobe AFM files, all those OsF fonts come with a
» full set of 228 glyphs, with the only difference of lining digits
» being replaced by oldstyle. According to the fontname scheme, you
» might as well use the variant letter 'j', hence
» FontSC (& OsF)-> <fam><weight>c8a.afm
» FontOsF -> <fam><weight>j8a.afm
ah, i have spent much time in trying to understand the subtelties of
thes encodings vs. shape variants notions in fontname.
I think that the Law would tell you that the `raw' adobe fonts (who
use standard glyph names, with shape variants) should be cj8a, and j8a
as you say. But if you modify the AFM in order to have the right glyph
names expected by fontinst, then the encoding is modified, and they
should be named c7d, 7d. To limit intercations difficulties with
fontinst, you may prefer 8x...
Practically, you do exactly what you like!