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  December 2006

LATEX-L December 2006

Subject:

Re: The Next Font Selection Scheme

From:

Javier Múgica de Rivera <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 5 Dec 2006 00:52:25 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (110 lines)

More thoughts on the subject:

It is painful to type \font\foo=foo12 for every font you need, and even 
more problematic, if it is decided to change the family, the size, or 
some other aspect, all the definitions of fonts need to be changed. Thus 
the need of font selection schemes. The idea of a font selecction scheme 
is that a user can type \bfseries and the current font automagically 
changes to the bold version of whatever it was at that point. Boldness 
is just une feature among many others that different variants from a 
font family may have. Any attempt to gather in a list all the posible 
features a font may have will fail, for it is an open problem, let alone 
unique. For some scripts other than the familiar latin, greek and 
cyrilic, some of the basic features do not even apply. For example, 
arabic and persian scripts do not have the contrast serif/sans serif, 
and do not have smallcaps, as was pointed in this list some years ago. 
Restricting ourselves to a latin script, some "artistic" fonts very 
likely provide only size variants, while others such as cm or lucida 
have plenty diferent variants with respect to several features and many 
of the posible combinations thereof. So one could start by thinking that 
the font switching commands be font-family dependent, and be provided by 
each family package. This would however lead to a severe compatibility 
problem. On the one side, if we decide to change the family for a 
document or a fraction of it, we would need to change all the font 
switching commands accordingly, for one font may call it \bold, while 
the other may call it \bfseries. On the other side, any macro that deals 
with fonts, such as a macro for typesetting a bold section header, would 
just work with the fonts that happen to make use of commands with the 
same name and the same meaning.
So, what does the current font selection scheme provide?:

a) The size axis, which is essential.
b) The encoding axis, wich has turn to also be essential, although it 
took a time to realise, I think.
c) Uniformity in the command names for some usual features (\bfseries, 
\itshape, ...)

It has the problem that the definition of these commands is hardwired. 
For example, \bfseries selects the font associated to the command 
\<enc>/<fam>/<shape>/bx/<size>. A very well implemented mechanism of 
substitutions is provided, I know, but it does not prevent the bx pair 
of letters to be needed to be placed into the fourth argument (axis) of 
the font definition command \DeclareFontShape. So in order to provide a 
comprehensive selection scheme the FSS would need as many axis as a 
single family may need. Note that I say "as many as a **single** family 
may need". Each particuar axis, apart from enconding and size (and 
possibly family), simply exists, and can be conceptualy thought by any 
font family as it needs it. Even if it were not a high number of axis, 
it would lead to a completely useless combinatorial explosion of 
commands for fonts than just implement a few axes; either directly in 
the font definition files or generated on the fly by the \Declare... macros.

The solution I see is the following one:
1) We make a list of names of user-level commands representing 
particular font features to be followed by any font that implements 
them. For example, \outline, \condensed, \shaded, \porportionalfigures, 
\trafficlike, \iranic, \novowels (This last for hebrew and others, if it 
makes sense).

2) We let those commands to be defined by the family. Therefore, when 
the family is changed, Latex has to take the definitions for the newly 
selected family.

The point 1 guarantees that if you are in possession of a font with 
outlined and shaded variants you can use a macro designed by someone for 
typeseting an outlined heading with a shaded initial and it will always 
work. Some command could be decalred to take arguments, for example, 
\boldness{<number>}, \slantness{<number>}, where standard values for  
<number> should also be given. It is similar to the LICR, but instead of 
dealing with characters it deals with font features.
The point 2 seems to me unavoidable. As I said, the feature 
classification is not closed nor unique, so a hardwired system of axis 
as the present one (or a hardwired system of whatever) will always be 
incomplete. This would make font families one more of those kind of 
entities that completely redefine a set of macros. Now I can think about 
languages and encodings.
I think that it wouldn't be ifficult to implement it. We simply define 
\outline (say) to be

\def\outline{\csname \font:fam/outline \endcsname}

(where \font:fam stores the current family). Then every font package 
would define the features that it implements. For example, the package 
times could define:

\times/boldness#1
\times/outline
\times/smallcaps
\times/mediumcaps
.
.
.

Latex would also keep track of the encoding and size, to be stored, for 
example, in \fam:enc and \fam:size. But it does nothing more than 
storing them. Each font package would make use of them in the definition 
of its \<fam>/<feature> commands. This allows each family to implement 
the substitution and orthogonality mechanism that it considers better 
suited for it, as well as definig missing  usual features as 
substitution+warning (of substitution+error). For example, a family foo 
that is itself calligraphic, could define \foo/italic to issue a warning 
and do nothing (continue without any font change), just in case a user 
uses (or uses a macro that makes use of) the command \italic while 
typesetting text with that font.
This scheme does not prevent Latex from suppling useful commands for the 
definitions of the fam-feature commands (\DeclareFontAxis, 
\DeclareFontFeature, or whatever). Nor would the list of standard 
features be closed (as is not the LICR).

Time to sleep, bye.
Javier A.

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