`limitations' of OzTeX (was: fontinst with 8y.etx)

Berthold Horn bkph@ai.mit.edu
Wed, 17 Jun 1998 13:47:32 -0400

At 12:27 PM 6/13/98 -0700, Melissa O'Neill wrote:

>P.S. My own custom encodings, which are based on the PDFDocEncoding
>wouldn't work particulally well on these Windows DVI previewers. If we
>rate an encoding's compatibility with Windows ANSI as N+M, where N is
>the number of slot clashes, and M is the number of glyphs that map to
>empty slots in Windows ANSI (and thus lower numbers are better), we get:
>	TeXBase1Encoding (aka 8r):	4+21
>	TeXnANSIEncoding (aka LY1/8y):	7+35
>	PDFDocEncoding:			23+16
>	my current custom encoding:	28+26
>	ECEncoding (roughly T1):	63+41
>Thus we can see that 8r is most conciliatory towards these Windows

I am not sure what those numbers mean, since the obvious interpretations
leads to some contradictions :-)

First of all, 8r and 8y have  the same overall glyph complement, so the
 numbers must be wrong.  Each inclludes the 15 glyphs missing from 
Windows ANSI yet found in the standard 228 of typical text fonts.
Each also includes ff, ffi, ffl, dotlessj.  So the +21 for 8r and +35 for 8y
should be BOTH +19 by my counting.  I wonder whether you have
added into the 8y total the glyphs that are repeated for convenience?

As for conflicts, both 8r and 8y take the `standard' departure from 
Latin 1 (and hence Windows ANSI) by replacing quotesingle in 39
with quoteright, and replacing grave accent with quoteleft in 92.
They also both have asciicircum instead of circumflex accent in 94,
and asciitilde instead of tilde accent in 126.  So I count 4 conflicts
with Windows ANSI in *both* 8r and 8y.

Could you clarify your numbers please?

Regards, Berthold.