Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.93F0904C@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:10 +0100 Return-Path: <@vm.gmd.de:LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.93F0904C" 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: magsteps vs. "true sizes" (again) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 22:00:18 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "bbeeton" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 508 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.93F0904C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable there's something i haven't seen in this discussion that happened to turn up in another forum, namely, what if a font based on computer modern roman shape description code was generated at exactly 17pt design size? what should it be called? by knuth's rules, which say that anything that knuth himself has named must hold to the exact characteristics he has defined (modulo some specific exclusions that don't apply to this discussion), and that the name for such an object can't be used for anything else, *** such a font can't be called cmr17 *** i submit that, however loathsome we may find it, cm* fonts are entrenched in magstep scaling (and vice versa). so perhaps the argument becomes moot -- "true size" is used for all fonts not based on cm* code (or other fonts that knuth has named), while magsteps remain in use for cm* (etc.) fonts. i still find the prospect scary, that unless naming conventions, including scaling, become standardized, someday ams may receive a file to be processed for typesetter output, all the fonts have names that are known locally, but some of them are based on scaling conventions that weren't the same at ams and the originating location when the fonts were generated. please, someone, prove to me i'm wrong! (we've already had bad experience with the fonts from one typesetter manufacturer, who shall remain nameless, where what they called 10pt times, when compared with 10pt times from any other source, was clearly larger -- in fact, almost certainly 11pt or a bit larger. when mixed with garamond for titling, 14pt times (linear scaling) turned out to be noticeably larger than 18pt garamond! try explaining *that* to the designer who's checking how well the implementation adheres to the spec.!) -- bb ------- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.93F0904C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable magsteps vs. "true sizes" (again)

there's something i haven't seen in this discussion = that happened to
turn up in another forum, namely, what if a font = based on computer
modern roman shape description code was generated at = exactly 17pt
design size?  what should it be called?
by knuth's rules, which say that anything that knuth = himself has named
must hold to the exact characteristics he has defined = (modulo some
specific exclusions that don't apply to this = discussion), and that the
name for such an object can't be used for anything = else,
        *** such a = font can't be called cmr17 ***
i submit that, however loathsome we may find it, cm* = fonts are
entrenched in magstep scaling (and vice = versa).
so perhaps the argument becomes moot -- "true = size" is used for all
fonts not based on cm* code (or other fonts that = knuth has named),
while magsteps remain in use for cm* (etc.) = fonts.

i still find the prospect scary, that unless naming = conventions,
including scaling, become standardized, someday ams = may receive a file
to be processed for typesetter output, all the fonts = have names that
are known locally, but some of them are based on = scaling conventions
that weren't the same at ams and the originating = location when the
fonts were generated.  please, someone, prove to = me i'm wrong!
(we've already had bad experience with the fonts from = one typesetter
manufacturer, who shall remain nameless, where what = they called 10pt
times, when compared with 10pt times from any other = source, was
clearly larger -- in fact, almost certainly 11pt or a = bit larger.
when mixed with garamond for titling, 14pt times = (linear scaling)
turned out to be noticeably larger than 18pt = garamond!  try explaining
*that* to the designer who's checking how well the = implementation
adheres to the spec.!)
        =         =         =         =         =         -- bb
-------

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.93F0904C--