Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.968F7154@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:15 +0100 Return-Path: <@vm.gmd.de:LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.968F7154" 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: Fonts Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 18:17:19 +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: 541 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.968F7154 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm not particularly familiar with font-handling, but here goes anyway = ... I have the impression that, although one can have fonts at 500/707 for 4-up/2-up, or at 1200 for "increasing the A5 resolution by printing on = A4 and photoreducing", these are clumsy ways to get "4-up or 2-up for = draft" or "the whole document magnified ready for photoreducing to increase resolution". They involve double-bendy things from the TeXbook, even though what is required is conceptually quite simple, and is the sort of thing that novices want (who don't want to read the double-bendy bits, = but who may well want to save paper or get good resolution). Isn't the cleanest way to do "2-up or 4-up for draft" or "whole document magnified ready for photoreducing" to get one's page-description = language (typically PostScript) to do the job, i.e., have .sty files that do = things "at design size", pass the .dvi file through dvi-to-postscript software, and then do the 2-up-ing, 4-up-ing or "magnifying ready for = photoreducing" by PostScript-to-PostScript software? See section G.2.5 of PostScript Reference Manual (2nd edition). The .sty file writer can then = concentrate on getting things right "at design size", since that will be the size of the final product. Questions that may need considering, then, are "How much effort gets put into duplication, via TeX, of facilities such as n-up and `magnification ready for photoreduction' that people who have PostScript can get via PostScript utilities?" Does one aim to provide complete support for 2-up-ing, 4-up-ing and `magnifying for photoreducing' via TeX's \magnification (for people who don't have PostScript+utilities), or does one say `Sorry. The problem of specifying the final product is = difficult enough already. We'll suppose that anyone wanting to do 2-up-ing, = 4-up-ing and magnifying-for-photoreducing can do it via PDL utilities (and regret that, in some cases, the supposition will be false).'?" Could one: * stick to "design size" fonts for .sty files that specify "the final product" * restrict the use of magnified fonts to any .sty files that one might produce as a concession to people who can't do n-up and "magnifying = for photoreducing" via their PDL (e.g., if one was producing style-options = to allow \documentstyle[2up]{article} \documentstyle[A4forA5]{article})? This would avoid confusing the "we don't have the design-size font" motivation with the "we want to magnify/reduce the whole document" motivation. David Rhead JANET: d.rhead@uk.ac.nottingham.cc.vme ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.968F7154 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Fonts

I'm not particularly familiar with font-handling, but = here goes anyway ...

I have the impression that, although one can have = fonts at 500/707 for
4-up/2-up, or at 1200 for "increasing the A5 = resolution by printing on A4
and photoreducing", these are clumsy ways to get = "4-up or 2-up for draft"
or "the whole document magnified ready for = photoreducing to increase
resolution".  They involve double-bendy = things from the TeXbook, even
though what is required is conceptually quite simple, = and is the sort of
thing that novices want (who don't want to read the = double-bendy bits, but
who may well want to save paper or get good = resolution).

Isn't the cleanest way to do "2-up or 4-up for = draft" or "whole document
magnified ready for photoreducing" to get one's = page-description language
(typically PostScript) to do the job, i.e., have .sty = files that do things
"at design size", pass the .dvi file = through dvi-to-postscript software,
and then do the 2-up-ing, 4-up-ing or = "magnifying ready for photoreducing"
by PostScript-to-PostScript software?  See = section G.2.5 of PostScript
Reference Manual (2nd edition).  The .sty file = writer can then concentrate
on getting things right "at design size", = since that will be the size of
the final product.

Questions that may need considering, then, are = "How much effort gets put
into duplication, via TeX, of facilities such as n-up = and `magnification
ready for photoreduction' that people who have = PostScript can get via
PostScript utilities?" Does one aim to provide = complete support for
2-up-ing, 4-up-ing and `magnifying for photoreducing' = via TeX's
\magnification (for people who don't have = PostScript+utilities), or does
one say `Sorry.  The problem of specifying the = final product is difficult
enough already.  We'll suppose that anyone = wanting to do 2-up-ing, 4-up-ing
and magnifying-for-photoreducing can do it via PDL = utilities (and regret
that, in some cases, the supposition will be = false).'?"

Could one:
* stick to "design size" fonts for .sty = files that specify "the final
  product"
* restrict the use of magnified fonts to any .sty = files that one might
  produce as a concession to people who can't do = n-up and "magnifying for
  photoreducing" via their PDL (e.g., if = one was producing style-options to
  allow \documentstyle[2up]{article} = \documentstyle[A4forA5]{article})?
This would avoid confusing the "we don't have = the design-size font"
motivation with the "we want to magnify/reduce = the whole document"
motivation.


David Rhead
JANET: d.rhead@uk.ac.nottingham.cc.vme

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.968F7154--