Re: fontname postfixes

[Rebecca and Rowland <rebecca@astrid.u-net.com>]

>At 18:51 1999-02-21 +0100, you wrote:
>
>>>Well, some systems get along without :-)
>>>And it removes one more level of "user error" potential.
>
>>At first sight: yes
>
>>The map file may, however, specify slanting or narrowing
>>of fonts.  Is there an alternative place where this information
>>can be taken from?
>
>I personally don't like algorithmic transformations of this nature.
>If the designer wanted a condensed version he/she would
>have designed one.

Not necessarily - fount designers work in a commercial world full of
commercial pressures.

> Ditto for slanted, smallcaps etc.  The
>fake ones do not look typographically correct.

True, but they're better than nothing.  It's useful to have the option
available.

>In any case, this - unlike other things like reencoding - is  PS
>specific.

So how come you spend so much time trumpeting the ability of Y&Y TeX to do,
erm, fount re-encoding, without tying the user to a PostScript method?

> That is, many rasterizers do not provide a convenient
>mechanism (or any mechanism) to implement the equivalent of
>these PS transformations.  So they tie you to a "PS only" world.

Ahem.  Rhubarb.

>There is another world out there.
>
>Keep in mind that what are called "PostScript fonts" on comp.text.tex

Some people on comp.text.tex call them PS founts.  You don't, and I don't.

>are called "ATM fonts" in DTP newsgroups.

Likewise, only some people do this.

>  Neither of which is good
>nomenclature.  Type 1 would be better.

Not really - it's just another partial name with its own confusion.  It
just happens to be a partial name that meets your political needs.

>  And these Type 1 fonts
>are most often used *without* any PS interpreter.

Calling them PostScript Type 1 founts is best.  It removes all the
ambiguity you get from calling them `PostScript' (only) or `Type 1' (often
abbreviated to T1) only.

Rowland.