[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Comments on 0.56

Concernant « Re: Comments on 0.56 », Ulrik Vieth écrit :
«
« There has been a very long discussion about dotlessj on tex-fonts
« last year, but without any real conclusion IIRC.
«

oh yes... The conclusion was that the best answer was the PS clipping
by B. Desruisseaux, but that it could not be the default (in lw35nfss
e.g.) because of its being non DVI. That's what i used for my
minion-cm layout.
Now there is also a little package by D.~Carlisle that hides the dot
with a white box, the problem being it is not background color
independent...

Maybe the best device independance is achieved when you fake missing
glyphs with graphics macros like \reflectbox? (if you clip or reflect
with graphics, that could work at least in pdftex for instance,
whereas PS code as special in VFs would not). But maybe i miss bad
side-effects?

« By this logic, none of the unavailable symbols should be filled with
« a missing glyph marker, so that some replacement can be added later,
« or do I misunderstand you?

misunderstand. There are two things: what you can do theoretically,
what you need. I'd say that it is now probably a bit early for these
end-user questions, but they do exist. I have no conclusion myself, but
i'd like to hear the other's point of view. Couldn't there be a tex
interface such that if the charachter is unfakable, we get that one
from another font where it is available [with tons of warnings of
course]? The remaining problem being that a few charachters do not
exist in any layout!
   Thierry Bouche.       -----       thierry.bouche@ujf-grenoble.fr
          http://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/~bouche/