Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:43:51 +0100 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> after having handwaved myself through the ideas of specifying glyph
> collections rather than font encodings, here is a "hand waving" sort of
> implementation of the idea.
>
> basically \fontencoding is changed to accept a comma list of encodings and
> \selectfont is changed to try these encodings in order (keeping the other font
> characteristics) until it finds a font or runs out of encodings. in the latter
> case it trys to find a font by changing the characteristics to defaults.
>
> the latter process could and should be made smarter, eg given
>
> encodings T1,OT1
> family xxx
> series yyy
> shape zzz
Hi,
Apparently, the sample always loads the ot1 variants, no matter
which encoging is selected. I think that you mean
\DeclareRobustCommand\selectfont ...etc.
instead of
\DeclareRobustCommand\Xselectfont ...etc.
But anyway...
As you know, I was experinmenting a couple of month ago with this idea
in my draft for Lambda (the multilingual environment for Omega).
However, I found several problems. For example:
- if I say \fontencoding{T1,OT1} we will get t1cmr which points to another
font (ec) and not to a t1 encoded cmr,
- more importantly, we lost the control of the final result, because
a faked accented letter may be not exactly the same as an actual composite
letter. It so happens that no TeX installations are the same and perhaps
a different font in selected in another system just because a file has not
been installed.
Despite that, I think that is the right way, and I'm studying how to solve
these issues. Any ideas?
Javier
___________________________________________________________
Javier Bezos | TeX y tipografia
jbezos at wanadoo dot es | http://perso.wanadoo.es/jbezos/
...........................................................
CervanTeX http://apolo.us.es/CervanTeX/CervanTeX.html
|
|
|