Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:34:56 +0100
David Carlisle writes:
> > And let other europeans continue to use the --mltex
> > option of web2c while they don't need more for their default format.
> As far as I can recall we've only ever had one or two requests to
> for latex to support mltex
frankly speaking you never were all attention about that.
Do you know that all Personal TeX products, since 1986,
are shipped with the mltex extension?
> So I've always assumed mltex usage was very low,
virtual argument refused.
> > I don't say that the solution is not going via virtual fonts;
> > i just say that quality is not sufficient at this time
> Hmm this is interesting, but not something I was aware of.
sorry to say i already said that to you at least a dozen of times.
> I knew some people were not happy with some of the shapes of "new"
> glyphs in ec,
which is a matter of taste (but not discussed in the original cm fonts)
and "bounding box" too (in fact, only char height is often wrong).
> but I thought that the vf files put the accents just where
> TeX would have put them (and that mltex did the same).
web2c TeX do it correctly with the mltex option. Please don't let
people believe mltex in another kind of TeX engine; it's a full TeX
which is trip test compliant.
> But more interesting to me is to know
> whether any differences are due to technical abilities of the two
> systems or whether they are just different design choices by the authors
> of the vf fonts.
metafont font designers should not have technical pb ;=)
and all tools are theorically available to vf designers.
But is it enough (via an automatic processing) to produce a good font?
> > i think to accent placement made dynamically by the output driver on
> > the basis of \special commands
> Unless I am totally confused, that isn't what mltex does, is it?
i spoke about a new feature to implement in output drivers using vf
to give access to floating diacritics. Far from your preoccupation i