LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L Archives

LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L  February 2001

LATEX-L February 2001

Subject:

Re: glyph collections viz font encodings

From:

Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:23:20 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (123 lines)

Actually all I wanted to do today regarding LaTeX was replying to Javier's
mail. instead ...

Anway, here we are now (still before midnight) ...

 > > it seems to me that this all boils down to "i want to ensure that all is
 > > Type1" so that i get proper pdf files. or am i wrong?
 >
 > That could be a possible reason, but very likely some people could
 > find other reasons. But yes, that is what I was thinking about.

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?

if so please tell us on the list.

 > More generally, the automatic selection should be done taking
 > into account possible restrictions/features defined by the user.
 > (Which restrictions/features can be set is to be studied.)

it is certainly true that such wanted restrictions/features should be studied
but can you give us any clue what you are thinking about?


having looked a bit at the current internals of NFSS2 (my God last i really
did this was long long time ago) i can see some easy way to attach such
restrictions on the level of either

 a) the font family
 b) the encoding/fontfamily combination

but i'm not sure one wants to look at it in this way. only what could be the
way to look at it?



 > It should be noted, however, that text also contains symbols and that
 > usually we are using _two_ encodings -- if we say \defaultencoding{T1},
 > \textdagger is taken from cmsy, which is the default symbol font (OMS).
 > So we have another problem when selecting an encoding -- in fact
 > we must select two.

do we? i'm not so sure. things like \textdagger aren't really tight to a
language, are they? i mean within one font you will have not different
variants to be selected depending on the text being French or German or so. at
least i would consider this extremely unlikely and would think a language
model should not explicitly build for it.

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.

 > Instead of multilingual documents, I would rather speak of multiscript
 > documents, since imo this concept is more important. Of course, different
 > languages use the latin script in different ways, but when there are
 > languages using diffent scripts there are additional problems. For
 > example, in a text containing both latin and cyrillic scripts the
 > following line of code might not make sense:
 >
 > \usepackage{times}
 > \usepackage{textcomp}
 >
 > Is times applied to both scripts?

not sure what you mean by applied to both scripts? the "times" or the
"textcomp"?


 > 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 is not quite clear which
atributes should be modified from language then. i guess the right approach is
to consider all commands that are described on p173 of the LaTeX Companion (eg
\famildefault ... \updefault) as language dependent commands but it is kind of
tricky to find the right level for specification and behaviour

 > Which symbol fonts are used?

well TS1ptm for cyrillic and TS1ppl for latin

 > And if there is no times font for cyrillic?

too bad then you shouldn't request it (and you get the default cyrillic (eg
default T2A font) which might be some cymr font)

 > Or there is no symbol
 > font?

again, you get the default TS1 font. but there is not much you can do about
that since if you ask for, say \textyen you better select a font actually
containing it, don't you?

(okay, i'm simplifying but it is getting late now :-)

 > If you use latin with tibetan, things are more complicated
 > because tibetan doesn't understand what a times font is, and again,

??? you mean, there is no tibetan Times glyphs/font? --- covered I think by
the posibility to select \rmdefault etc on a per language basis and by the
fact that for each encoding there is a default font which you get if things
fail.

 > what happens if a certain script requires two or more metrics and/or
 > encodings?

i would be grateful if you elaborate on the last two with examples.


 > Finally, it remains the problem of what happens if people dislike
 > the default settings. But that is unavoidable...

it is a real problem if you forget to build your system in a way that the
defaults can be easily altered. if they can it might still be a problem, but
then i vote for, too bad (if you honnestly think you have chosen good
defaults:-)


really good night now
frank

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
July 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
July 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
September 2007
August 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
November 2004
October 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
October 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
March 2002
December 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Universität Heidelberg | Impressum | Datenschutzerklärung

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager