Wed, 16 Apr 1997 12:26:05 +0100
Your message of "Wed, 16 Apr 1997 12:57:33 +0200."
> I think Springer Verlag
Why bring Springer into the matter? Especially considering the well-
publicised views on LaTeX of their only net-active member of staff?
> uses TeX in part because it produces the right
> thing. So I think simply using rescaled fonts would produce inferior
> technical typesetting.
Nevertheless, it's what almost everyone does do. There are in
principle mechanisms for optical scaling type 1 multiple-master fonts,
but (apart from Adobe) I don't know many people who use them. (Though
I wouldn't be surprised if Y&Y TeX, with ATM in the background,
could do so.)
> I would label PS as a "page description" language, whereas TeX is a
> "typesetting" language. PS admits correct fonts typesetting, but the
> programs used to produce PS output defaults to the simplification of using
> merely font rescaling.
Of course PostScript is a PDL. Of course *most* use of Type 1 fonts
merely uses rescaling (with hints). It doesn't mean that it's
impossible to do better, and it doesn't mean that many people can
really tell the difference.
The real problem about (the plethora of) type 1 text fonts is that
there are but two for which publicly-available matching maths fonts
exist (i.e., Times and Lucida). Thus people who want to do
mathematical typesetting either have to go to a publisher who has a
private set (such as CUP), or to use CM, Times or Lucida.
> So I do not think this is a minor issue, when it comes down to TeX; this
> is in fact something that really makes TeX typesetting.
It *is* a minor issue by comparison with the matching-fonts issue,