Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.97995964@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:17 +0100 Return-Path: <@vm.gmd.de:LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.97995964" 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: Ending the tyranny of magsteps! Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 20:59:00 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Don Hosek" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 546 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.97995964 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -Re the possible use of Sauter's fonts for LaTeX3; there still some -tidying up -which still needs to be done on Sauter's fonts, especially in the -fontdimens. -If you try setting super-scripts at larger than normal sizes (don't ask -me why -I needed to :-), you'll find that the positioning is very poor. I -altered the -sup1 and sup2 parameters to compensate for this at our site. I've also -added -some more unslanted italic variantions to the set, to get upright bold -and If I ever gave the impression that Sauter's fonts were the best choice for large-size CM, let me correct that. The concept is good but I'm less than thrilled with the appearance of his fonts at sizes over 12pt (This includes cmr17 in both his and Knuth's versions). Large sizes of type are used in display contexts only (with rare exceptions) and as such need rather different characteristics from their text counterparts. cmr17 is a seriously underweight font for display use and I personally avoid its use. -What with two different resolutions of -printers (300 and 400), and many specialised fonts, our font space is -currently 25MB of PK, 1.3MB of TFM, and 204KB of VF. I'm going to be -looking -at font caching schemes to reduce the amount of PKs kept around, but it -doesn't solve the space needed for TFM/VFs. The only advantage of -magsteps (as -I see it) is that one TFM does for all sizes. But given that each TFM file takes up ~1K, on most systems its more an issue of per-file allocations than anything else for their diskspace. Incidentally, I think you'll find that eliminating design sizes on TFM files will give you no appreciable decrease in the TFM directory size. -dh ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.97995964 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Ending the tyranny of magsteps!

-Re the possible use of Sauter's fonts for LaTeX3; = there still some
-tidying up
-which still needs to be done on Sauter's fonts, = especially in the
-fontdimens.
-If you try setting super-scripts at larger than = normal sizes (don't ask
-me why
-I needed to :-), you'll find that the positioning is = very poor. I
-altered the
-sup1 and sup2 parameters to compensate for this at = our site. I've also
-added
-some more unslanted italic variantions to the set, = to get upright bold
-and

If I ever gave the impression that Sauter's fonts were = the best choice
for large-size CM, let me correct that. The concept = is good but I'm less
than thrilled with the appearance of his fonts at = sizes over 12pt (This
includes cmr17 in both his and Knuth's versions). = Large sizes of type
are used in display contexts only (with rare = exceptions) and as such
need rather different characteristics from their text = counterparts.
cmr17 is a seriously underweight font for display use = and I personally
avoid its use.

-What with two different resolutions of
-printers (300 and 400), and many specialised fonts, = our font space is
-currently 25MB of PK, 1.3MB of TFM, and 204KB of VF. = I'm going to be
-looking
-at font caching schemes to reduce the amount of PKs = kept around, but it
-doesn't solve the space needed for TFM/VFs. The only = advantage of
-magsteps (as
-I see it) is that one TFM does for all sizes.

But given that each TFM file takes up ~1K, on most = systems its more an
issue of per-file allocations than anything else for = their diskspace.
Incidentally, I think you'll find that eliminating = design sizes on TFM
files will give you no appreciable decrease in the = TFM directory size.

-dh

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.97995964--