Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.9232546C@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:07 +0100 Return-Path: <@vm.gmd.de:LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9232546C" x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil t 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: re: fontdef issues Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 18:04:10 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 503 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9232546C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {Rainer, Barbara} --- >> Barbara asks: >> what effect might changing from a magstep to a "true-size" = approach >> have on the compatibility between sites using mainly plain-based >> styles and those using mainly latex? >> Question: do plain based styles *really* use magsteps? More than = LaTeX >> styles do? It seems to me that in both cases the reason was that no >> true-size fonts were available. Perhaps we are a bit more >> avantgardistic than the rest, but I don't think that people who >> restrict themselves to plain will stick to magsteps (especially since >> plain.tex itself does not use them). Personally, I hope and expect >> people gradually move to something like eplain, which offers them the >> facilities plain plain lacks. Ans for AMSTeX, it's under control of >> the AMS what happens, isn't it? As {probably} the one member of this group who uses PLAIN habitually and LATEX almost never, perhaps I may be permitted to respond on behalf of PLAIN users. In the beginning, as a na\"ive CM user, I rapidly discovered the truth of Knuth's assertion: ``At many Computer Centres, it has proved = convenient to supply fonts at magnifications that grow in geometric ratios ..."; if I wished to be able to print my documents, I had no choice but to use = \magsteps. Then came PostScript fonts, and with them ArborText's DVILASER/PS and = PREVIEW. All of a sudden, it didn't matter at what size I loaded a font, the = driver would still bail me out --- it would either scale a PostScript font, = producing very acceptable results, or it would scale a CM bitmap, yielding = aesthetically poorer but still acceptable results. I decided to incorporate this = new-found flexibility into an orthogonal font-handling suite, and wrote PS-Fonts. Then I discovered emTeX, and Eberhard Mattes' wonderfully consistent = driver suite; it was sheer heaven -- grey-scaling (anti-aliasing) of fonts = on-screen allowed me to read a whole page of A4 (something PREVIEW could never = approach). But only a very restricted range of my documents could be previewed --- = those that pre-dated PS-Fonts. Eberhard's drivers couldn't scale fonts, = except in very restricted circumstances (i.e. zoom was supported, but nearest-font matching wasn't --- the font either had to exist at exactly the size = specified, or a font-substitution file had to indicate the exact size of the = intended and substitute fonts; in the latter case, the font was used as-is (i.e. = unscaled)). PS-Fonts was completely re-written, to restrict font-loading to \magstep variants only. The story could be continued, but by now the theme is clear --- in every = case, my decision whether or not to use \magsteps has been controlled solely = by the abilities of my drivers. And I don't see this rationale changing. = All the while I continue to use Eberhard's DVISCR, I shall continue to = require \magstep-only fonts. And I don't envisage giving up DVISCR, and = Eberhard has indicated that he will never undertake font-scaling. Therefore, for = this user at least, \magsteps are mandatory. I rest my case. >> do most of the people reading this discussion believe that = everything >> can be done with latex, to the exclusion of writing job-specific >> macros even for certain specialized tasks? >> Yes, I believe that. After all, LaTeX is "only" a macro package. >> Besides, the main point of LaTeX is not to take away the power of = TeX, >> but to hide its bad behaviour and syntax, and to focus on the logical >> structure rather of its visual one. I accept the latter as the `main point' of LaTeX, but not the former; if the syntax of TeX is `bad', then the present syntax of LaTeX is no improvement; and `bad behaviour' is in the eye of the beholder -- where, for example, does Knuth cause a parameter to vary in mode between horizontal and vertical depending simply on its sign ? ** Phil. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9232546C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: re: fontdef issues

{Rainer, Barbara} ---

>> Barbara asks:

>>    what effect might changing = from a magstep to a "true-size" approach
>>    have on the compatibility = between sites using mainly plain-based
>>    styles and those using = mainly latex?

>> Question: do plain based styles *really* use = magsteps? More than LaTeX
>> styles do? It seems to me that in both cases = the reason was that no
>> true-size fonts were available. Perhaps we = are a bit more
>> avantgardistic than the rest, but I don't = think that people who
>> restrict themselves to plain will stick to = magsteps (especially since
>> plain.tex itself does not use them). = Personally, I hope and expect
>> people gradually move to something like = eplain, which offers them the
>> facilities plain plain lacks. Ans for = AMSTeX, it's under control of
>> the AMS what happens, isn't it?

As {probably} the one member of this group who uses = PLAIN habitually and
LATEX almost never, perhaps I may be permitted to = respond on behalf of
PLAIN users.

In the beginning, as a na\"ive CM user, I rapidly = discovered the truth
of Knuth's assertion: ``At many Computer Centres, it = has proved convenient to
supply fonts at magnifications that grow in geometric = ratios ..."; if I
wished to be able to print my documents, I had no = choice but to use \magsteps.

Then came PostScript fonts, and with them ArborText's = DVILASER/PS and PREVIEW.
All of a sudden, it didn't matter at what size I = loaded a font, the driver
would still bail me out --- it would either scale a = PostScript font, producing
very acceptable results, or it would scale a CM = bitmap, yielding aesthetically
poorer but still acceptable results.  I decided = to incorporate this new-found
flexibility into an orthogonal font-handling suite, = and wrote PS-Fonts.

Then I discovered emTeX, and Eberhard Mattes' = wonderfully consistent driver
suite; it was sheer heaven -- grey-scaling = (anti-aliasing) of fonts on-screen
allowed me to read a whole page of A4 (something = PREVIEW could never approach).
But only a very restricted range of my documents = could be previewed --- those
that pre-dated PS-Fonts.  Eberhard's drivers = couldn't scale fonts, except in
very restricted circumstances (i.e. zoom was = supported, but nearest-font
matching wasn't --- the font either had to exist at = exactly the size specified,
or a font-substitution file had to indicate the exact = size of the intended and
substitute fonts; in the latter case, the font was = used as-is (i.e. unscaled)).
PS-Fonts was completely re-written, to restrict = font-loading to \magstep
variants only.

The story could be continued, but by now the theme is = clear --- in every case,
my decision whether or not to use \magsteps has been = controlled solely by
the abilities of my drivers.  And I don't see = this rationale changing.  All
the while I continue to use Eberhard's DVISCR, I = shall continue to require
\magstep-only fonts.  And I don't envisage = giving up DVISCR, and Eberhard
has indicated that he will never undertake = font-scaling.  Therefore, for this
user at least, \magsteps are mandatory.  I rest = my case.

>>    do most of the people = reading this discussion believe that everything
>>    can be done with latex, to = the exclusion of writing job-specific
>>    macros even for certain = specialized tasks?

>> Yes, I believe that. After all, LaTeX is = "only" a macro package.
>> Besides, the main point of LaTeX is not to = take away the power of TeX,
>> but to hide its bad behaviour and syntax, = and to focus on the logical
>> structure rather of its visual one.

I accept the latter as the `main point' of LaTeX, but = not the former;
if the syntax of TeX is `bad', then the present = syntax of LaTeX is no
improvement; and `bad behaviour' is in the eye of the = beholder -- where,
for example, does Knuth cause a parameter to vary in = mode between
horizontal and vertical depending simply on its sign = ?

        =         =         =         =         ** = Phil.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.9232546C--