Re: Future of the `Karl Berry Font Naming Scheme'...

["Melissa O'Neill" <oneill@cs.sfu.ca>]

Pierre writes:
> In any case, what is the advantage of names like "pkplci9dx11"?  If you
> are going to break the bounds of limited name space, why not use something
> you can read, like the PostScript FontName?  You will probably find
> yourself aliasing it anyway to avoid typing endless strings, and if you
> do, the KB scheme is a pretty good place to start.  

I think you miss the point: pkplci9dx11 *is* a Karl Berry style name.
Break it down for yourself: p = Adobe, kp = Kepler, l = Light, c =
Small Caps, i = Italic, 9d = Expert Cork Encoded with OldStyle Digits,
x = Extended, 11 = Design Size 11. Sure, it doesn't fit in eight
characters, but this is a general problem with the Karl Berry scheme,
and one I thought that was widely known.

While the Karl Berry (KB) scheme can fit many font names into 8 characters,
it doesn't fit them all.

How many times has someone sent you a document in DVI format rather
than PostScript. And then of those DVI files, how many used PostScript
fonts? What would you do if I sent you a DVI file that needed Stone Serif?

If I send you a DVI file that uses pkplci9dx11, or even some 8
character contraction of that name, will you be able to print it? Only
if you've bought yourself a copy of Kepler and set up tools to
integrate multiple master fonts and TeX. Better then that I send you a
PostScript file or PDF file, in which case the name I use locally is
pretty inconsequential.

It might matter to use consistent names for the `standard 35' fonts that
are in most PostScript printers, but beyond that, I don't see that it
matters greatly.

Regards,

    Melissa.