Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:39:26 +0100
Frank Mittelbach a écrit :
> is there _anybody else_ who can come up with another reason why one wants to
> restrict a list of possible encodings (of the same font, or say set of
> glyphs!) other than some of the actual fonts are not suitable for the target
> device, eg pdf output?
well, no. I don't even agree that it's a good reason: make a virtual
font with the glyphs you want in the required encoding. If the encoding
was meant for your language, then you can probably enhance the
> however you are right, that there might be the problem that for some fonts you
> have TS1 available and for others you don't and you might want to mix the
> fonts. in the latter case things get more difficult.
something harder: most of fonts declared as T<something> are not fully
compliant. most T1 tfms miss Ng, most TS1 miss \textmaried, etc. what
can be done at latex level about that? declare numerous encodings (T1
from 8a, TS1 from 8a/8a+8x...) and find that most of the time asking for
french+times will return that Times is not T1?
> > What happens if for some reason
> > I like cyrillic times and latin palatino?
> first of all that needs to be specifiable and that is an interesting problem
> in itself (though solvable in a decent way).
It seems obvious to me that what you nedd here is a family whose T1 set
points to palatino, and T2 to times. Latex requires standard markup to
have portable & relatively independant content structure from font sets,
etc. Customization should take place in the FD/VF rather than through
packages. Or am I silly?
> > And if there is no times font for cyrillic?
Btw, also regarding persian, Bitstream cyberbit is a unicode font based
on Times. Is it really impossible to have a Times-like font for any