Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.8F999044@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:03 +0100 Return-Path: <@vm.gmd.de:LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.8F999044" x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE:magsteps Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1992 11:40:07 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Frank Mittelbach" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 481 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.8F999044 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is to an older message, my modem line was done ... Subj: RE: fontdef issues > I say let's end the tyranny of magsteps. Nobody outside the TeX > world uses them... 17.28pt, REALLY! Let's have our standard > series of sizes match that used in the real typographical world: > {5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,14,18,20,24,28,30,36} (The list is from > memory from quite some time ago, but I believe its accurate). I wouldn't mind doing so, I agree that this would help very much as bitmap fonts not directly produced for TeX tend:-) to come not in 17.26pt. So let's think a bit about what we would gain and where the problems are. First of all, who uses the current set of font? That's something I wonder for quite some time but would like to her facts. I know that some commercial installations (and also emtex, for example, if one makes fonts for it without much knowledge about TeX internals, i.e., using mfjob all) will fill up the hard disk by generating every font even 5pt ones in every magstep known. The result is a huge number of fonts from that about 85% are never used. So the questions: 1) Which fonts are actually in standard use? 2) If we provide a typographical standard set of fontsizes does this increase the storage or reduce it if we at the same time make a go to reduce all the unnecessary magstep versions? 3) Having a second set font magnified to 1.2 does make sense, when we want to increase the resolution by optically reducing the output from TeX. It is not correct to use 12pt option! How many magnifications are necessary for this purpose? One or two? (Most certainly not seven) > > Something nice would be the ability to set up scaling ratios > based on x-height so that, say Times and Helvetica can be mixed > with little thought. This would in principle possible with the new version although I suppose a bit complicated. Therefore the question, how important would this be? I mean for a particular job, (e.g. a book) one can set up a short fontdef file with something like <10>timr at9.3pt.... General scaling according to the x-height would slow down loading but could be made faster if really desired. Frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.8F999044 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE:magsteps

This is to an older message, my modem line was done = ...

Subj:   RE: fontdef issues

> I say let's end the tyranny of magsteps. Nobody = outside the TeX
> world uses them... 17.28pt, REALLY! Let's have = our standard
> series of sizes match that used in the real = typographical world:
> {5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,14,18,20,24,28,30,36} (The = list is from
> memory from quite some time ago, but I believe = its accurate).

I wouldn't mind doing so, I agree that this would help = very much as
bitmap fonts not directly produced for TeX tend:-) to = come not in
17.26pt. So let's think a bit about what we would = gain and where the
problems are.

First of all, who uses the current set of font? That's = something I
wonder for quite some time but would like to her = facts. I know that
some commercial installations (and also emtex, for = example, if one
makes fonts for it without much knowledge about TeX = internals, i.e.,
using mfjob all) will fill up the hard disk by = generating every font
even 5pt ones in every magstep known. The result is a = huge number of
fonts from that about 85% are never used. So the = questions:

1) Which fonts are actually in standard use?

2) If we provide a typographical standard set of = fontsizes does this
increase the storage or reduce it if we at the same = time make a go to
reduce all the unnecessary magstep versions?

3) Having a second set font magnified to 1.2 does make = sense, when we
want to increase the resolution by optically reducing = the output from
TeX. It is not correct to use 12pt option! How many = magnifications are
necessary for this purpose? One or two? (Most = certainly not seven)

>
> Something nice would be the ability to set up = scaling ratios
> based on x-height so that, say Times and = Helvetica can be mixed
> with little thought.

This would in principle possible with the new version = although I
suppose a bit complicated. Therefore the question, = how important would
this be? I mean for a particular job, (e.g. a book) = one can set up a
short fontdef file with something like

     <10>timr = at9.3pt....

General scaling according to the x-height would slow = down loading but
could be made faster if really desired.

Frank



------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.8F999044--