LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Hans Aberg <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 16 Apr 1997 12:57:33 +0200
text/plain (35 lines)
Sebastian Rahtz <[log in to unmask]> write:

> >   Is there not a problem here: PostScript fonts may only come in one size,
> > which then is rescaled.
> >
> >   But in correct typesetting, as in TeX fonts, the weights and proportions
> > actually change with the font size.
> >
> >   So how does that work out here?
>um, this is what i would call a canard. we have known this since the
>first uses of PS fonts in TeX (I did my first book in LaTeX with Times
>in 1986). its a fact of life that most PS fonts only come in 10 pt
>size. Some have other sizes. Many Computer Modern fonts have a range
>of sizes, some have more than others.
>99% of the typesetting world gets by fine with the (technically
>perhaps inferior) optical-scaling-plus-hints of Type1 fonts.

>I suggest there are more productive things to worry about

  I think Springer Verlag uses TeX in part because it produces the right
thing. So I think simply using rescaled fonts would produce inferior
technical typesetting.

  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.

  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.

  Hans Aberg