Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.957332A4@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:13 +0100 In-Reply-To: <16651.9201080111@hilliard.ecs.soton.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.957332A4" Return-Path: <@vm.gmd.de:LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 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]) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Magsteps/design sizes Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 13:09:16 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Sebastian Rahtz" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 531 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.957332A4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Don Hosek writes: > macro package. The primary exception is where TeX use tends to > have a strong personality directing it which is rare in > multi-user environments. The most common case where someone is > likely to be plain-only is in a single user situation. In these I once met a student at the instituition where Phil Taylor cracks the whip. and i dont mean figuratively. > - By the way, if memory serves (and it usually doesn't) ec/dc has > something like the Sauter scaling built in so getting 18pt, > 24pt etc. type should not be too horrible. surely this whole discussion should be in two parts. a) what should the syntax and facilities of \new@fontshape be? Frank seems to have a handle on this, and it looks like being flexible enough to handle both fixed sizes and scaleable fonts. b) what should the standard offerings of fontdef.tex (and the sizes section of lfonts.tex) look like? personally, I don't care, as I shall change them, but I agree that readers of thsi list are not typical. if it was me, I'd make it look exactly like old LaTeX since `real' people just use that and shut up. If a) is solved properly, then b) is just a matter of a grind creating some suggested, and one preferred, fontdef.tex. There could be three suggestions: - exactly as was - mimicking PostScript by assuming that anything can be created a la Sauter - some horrible compromise patching up current deficiences At the risk of repeating myself from years past, does anyone who is a professional typographer and designer use CMR? ok, there are maybe 1-10 people in this category, but surely the vast majority of people either use the fonts on their typesetter, or they use CMR for documents which, however beautiful, are not mass market? sebastian ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.957332A4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Magsteps/design sizes

Don Hosek writes:
 >   macro package. The primary = exception is where TeX use tends to
 >   have a strong personality = directing it which is rare in
 >   multi-user environments. The = most common case where someone is
 >   likely to be plain-only is in = a single user situation. In these
I once met a student at the instituition where Phil = Taylor cracks the
whip. and i dont mean figuratively.


 > - By the way, if memory serves (and it = usually doesn't) ec/dc has
 >   something like the Sauter = scaling built in so getting 18pt,
 >   24pt etc. type should not be = too horrible.
surely this whole discussion should be in two = parts.
 a) what should the syntax and facilities of = \new@fontshape be? Frank
    seems to have a handle on this, = and it looks like being flexible
    enough to handle both fixed sizes = and scaleable fonts.
 b) what should the standard offerings of = fontdef.tex (and the sizes
    section of lfonts.tex) look like? = personally, I don't care, as I
    shall change them, but I agree = that readers of thsi list are not
    typical. if it was me, I'd make it = look exactly like old LaTeX
    since `real' people just use that = and shut up.

If a) is solved properly, then b) is  just a = matter of a grind
creating some suggested, and one preferred, = fontdef.tex. There could
be three suggestions:
 - exactly as was
 - mimicking PostScript by assuming that = anything can be created a la
   Sauter
 - some horrible compromise patching up current = deficiences

At the risk of repeating myself from years past, does = anyone who
is a professional typographer and designer use CMR? = ok, there are
maybe 1-10 people in this category, but surely the = vast majority of
people either use the fonts on their typesetter, or = they use CMR for
documents which, however beautiful, are not mass = market?

sebastian

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.957332A4--