Received: from webgate.proteosys.de (mail.proteosys-ag.com [62.225.9.49]) by lucy.proteosys (8.11.0/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id f14Ckt716274 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:46:55 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f14Cln714842 . for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:47:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C08EA8.8DBD0980" Received: from mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailserver1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.30]) by mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f14Cks710151 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:46:54 +0100 (MET) Received: from mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.57]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18959 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:46:54 +0100 (MET) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (mail.listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.5]) by mailgate2.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f14Ckr710147 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:46:53 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.5) by mail.listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <3.6280E701@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:46:48 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 486577 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:46:49 +0100 Received: from ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (mail.urz.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.119.234]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA22097 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:46:48 +0100 (MET) Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA44440 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:46:49 +0100 Received: from smtp.wanadoo.es (m1smtpisp02.wanadoo.es [62.36.220.21] (may be forged)) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f14Cknu15738 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:46:49 +0100 (MET) Received: from [62.36.68.228] (usuario2-36-68-228.dialup.uni2.es [62.36.68.228]) by smtp.wanadoo.es (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f14CkjS18998 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:46:46 +0100 (MET) Return-Path: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: glyph collections viz font encodings Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:43:51 +0100 Message-ID: <200102041246.f14CkjS18998@smtp.wanadoo.es> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Javier Bezos" Sender: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" To: "Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L" Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3703 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C08EA8.8DBD0980 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > after having handwaved myself through the ideas of specifying glyph > collections rather than font encodings, here is a "hand waving" sort = of > implementation of the idea. > > basically \fontencoding is changed to accept a comma list of encodings = and > \selectfont is changed to try these encodings in order (keeping the = other font > characteristics) until it finds a font or runs out of encodings. in = the latter > case it trys to find a font by changing the characteristics to = defaults. > > the latter process could and should be made smarter, eg given > > encodings T1,OT1 > family xxx > series yyy > shape zzz Hi, Apparently, the sample always loads the ot1 variants, no matter which encoging is selected. I think that you mean \DeclareRobustCommand\selectfont ...etc. instead of \DeclareRobustCommand\Xselectfont ...etc. But anyway... As you know, I was experinmenting a couple of month ago with this idea in my draft for Lambda (the multilingual environment for Omega). However, I found several problems. For example: - if I say \fontencoding{T1,OT1} we will get t1cmr which points to = another font (ec) and not to a t1 encoded cmr, - more importantly, we lost the control of the final result, because a faked accented letter may be not exactly the same as an actual = composite letter. It so happens that no TeX installations are the same and = perhaps a different font in selected in another system just because a file has = not been installed. Despite that, I think that is the right way, and I'm studying how to = solve these issues. Any ideas? Javier ___________________________________________________________ Javier Bezos | TeX y tipografia jbezos at wanadoo dot es | http://perso.wanadoo.es/jbezos/ ........................................................... CervanTeX http://apolo.us.es/CervanTeX/CervanTeX.html ------_=_NextPart_001_01C08EA8.8DBD0980 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: glyph collections viz font encodings

> after having handwaved myself through the ideas = of  specifying glyph
> collections rather than font encodings, here is = a "hand waving" sort of
> implementation of the idea.
>
> basically \fontencoding is changed to accept a = comma list of encodings and
> \selectfont is changed to try these encodings in = order (keeping the other font
> characteristics) until it finds a font or runs = out of encodings. in the latter
> case it trys to find a font by changing the = characteristics to defaults.
>
> the latter process could and should be made = smarter, eg given
>
>  encodings T1,OT1
>  family    xxx
>  series    yyy
>  shape     zzz

Hi,

Apparently, the sample always loads the ot1 variants, = no matter
which encoging is selected. I think that you = mean

\DeclareRobustCommand\selectfont    = ...etc.

instead of

\DeclareRobustCommand\Xselectfont    = ...etc.

But anyway...

As you know, I was experinmenting a couple of month = ago with this idea
in my draft for Lambda (the multilingual environment = for Omega).
However, I found several problems. For = example:
- if I say \fontencoding{T1,OT1} we will get t1cmr = which points to another
  font (ec) and not to a t1 encoded cmr,
- more importantly, we lost the control of the final = result, because
  a faked accented letter may be not exactly the = same as an actual composite
  letter. It so happens that no TeX = installations are the same and perhaps
  a different font in selected in another system = just because a file has not
  been installed.

Despite that, I think that is the right way, and I'm = studying how to solve
these issues. Any ideas?

Javier
___________________________________________________________
Javier = Bezos           &n= bsp;  | TeX y tipografia
jbezos at wanadoo dot es  | http://perso.wanadoo.es/jbezos/<= /A>
...........................................................
CervanTeX   http://apolo.us.es/C= ervanTeX/CervanTeX.html

------_=_NextPart_001_01C08EA8.8DBD0980--