X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1390" "Wed" "3" "March" "1999" "16:36:11" "+0100" "Thierry Bouche" "Thierry.Bouche@UJF-GRENOBLE.FR" nil "31" "Re: Axis in nfss" "^Date:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA18966; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:29:59 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.5) by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <2.88625482@listserv.gmd.de>; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:29:54 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 427611 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:29:54 +0100 Received: from ujf.ujf-grenoble.fr (ujf.ujf-grenoble.fr [193.54.232.33]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA09162 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:29:52 +0100 (MET) Received: from mozart.ujf-grenoble.fr (mozart.ujf-grenoble.fr [193.54.241.5]) by ujf.ujf-grenoble.fr (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA02170 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:29:52 +0100 (MET) Received: (from bouche@localhost) by mozart.ujf-grenoble.fr (8.7.6/8.6.9) id QAA21991; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:36:11 +0100 (MET) References: <199902281535.QAA14126@mozart.ujf-grenoble.fr> <199903022242.XAA01052@istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de> X-Mailer: VM 6.22 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <199903031536.QAA21991@mozart.ujf-grenoble.fr> Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: <199903022242.XAA01052@istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:36:11 +0100 From: Thierry Bouche Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: Axis in nfss Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3257 » i'm not sure i agree on the split for the series attribute. and it doesn't » really origins in the CM history --- it does origin in "Methods of Book » design" by Hugh Wiliamson. interesting info, thanks. i stand corrected. » one idea with the axis' or attributes was that it should be desirable (and » sensible) to change individual attributes while retaining al others. Now i » claim that there is not much argument for changing individually width but » retaining weight or the other way around That's a point. Here is a (maybe bad--tell me) counterexample: I define an abstract environment as a noarrower column using some narrow sansserif font. Within this environment, I want to be able to typeset anything that could be in the text, including weight variants. Another similar use: in a bilingual (?) document, i keep the translation in a narrow version of the font, everything else affected by the same font variations. Well, yes : my examples could be easily treated by declaring a xx-narrow family, rather than having width & weight separated. My problem is on the practical/genericity of the markup side. something like \fontfamily{\f@family n} is, i believe, very fragile. I see that your » i mean proper classes (not a generic one like article et al) can't cater for » more than a single font set anyway, can it? breaks my argument as well... Thierry Bouche, Grenoble.