Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:38:30 +0100
> Yes i'm seriously thinking that splitting TS1 into say, TSA (adobe default) TSE
> (with expert set) and so on would be helpful to actually make sure that if you
> have a font that claims to be in some encoding it really has the glyphs of
> that encoding.
I suggested making a TSA encoding for Adobe fonts years ago, but noone
undertook the work.
> Similar T1 should then be expanded to have companion encodings which are used
> for fonts that do not have Ng etc.
> The number of encodings wouldn't grow that much, but then you could really be
> sure that you get what you ask for and not just some square boxes in the
> output and some error messages from dvips.
I'm afraid, the number of encodings will grow much. There are more founderies
than Adobe around (like Monotype, Linotype, Agfa, Berthold to drop some
names) and they all have different basic and expert glyph sets in their fonts.
My font book from FontShop lists about 70 founderies, the new edition
probably has even more of them.
In addition, glyph sets aren't constant in time; older fonts lack the
Euro sign newer fonts have.
Fonts are a real mess (not only with (La)TeX, but also with the so-called
professional versions for PC and Mac) and I don't see that the state of affairs
will change on foreseeable future.
IMHO, the black box replacements in vf's are an error: An unavailable glyph
should be unavailable in the tfm file as well and provoke a harsh TeX
error message. To catch the black thingies at proof reading stage is rather
late and error prone.