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 f14GYY716683 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:34:34 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f14GZS715374 . for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:35:28 +0100 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 f14GYX719516 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:34:33 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C08EC8.5B230900" 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 RAA18735 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:34:32 +0100 (MET) 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 f14GYW719512 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:34:32 +0100 (MET) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.5) by mail.listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <14.301C3EC3@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:34:28 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 486685 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:34:29 +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 RAA24901 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:34:28 +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 RAA33302 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:34:28 +0100 Received: from venus.open.ac.uk (venus.open.ac.uk [137.108.143.2]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f14GYRu14272 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:34:27 +0100 (MET) Received: from fell.open.ac.uk by venus.open.ac.uk via SMTP Local (Mailer 3.1) with ESMTP; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:34:26 +0000 Received: (from car2@localhost) by fell.open.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA15339; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:34:39 GMT In-Reply-To: <200102041246.f14CkjS18998@smtp.wanadoo.es> References: <200102041246.f14CkjS18998@smtp.wanadoo.es> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.76 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-Authentication-Warning: fell.open.ac.uk: car2 set sender to car2@fell.open.ac.uk using -f Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: glyph collections viz font encodings Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:34:38 +0100 Message-ID: <14973.33950.634055.464928@fell.open.ac.uk> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Chris Rowley" 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: 3705 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C08EC8.5B230900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Javier > - 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. I am not quite sure what you are saying is the problem here. Do you think that these two should be `the same' in some ways in which they are not in current fonts? In particular, are concerned about: -- only differences in the final glyphs or -- differences in the metrics (these can cause major differences in the typesetting). In fact differences equally great in the actual glyphs can happen simply because two versions of what claims to be the same font are finally used in the actual rendering on some actual physical device. > 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. This is true and a fact of the universe (and always will be). The interesting question is: what differences in the font resources are = important? How can a typesetting system usefully interact with these differences? > > Despite that, I think that is the right way, and I'm studying how to = solve > these issues. Any ideas? Probably: but please be specific about what issues you think need to be dealt with --- then maybe we can deal with some of them by turning them into non-issues:-). chris ------_=_NextPart_001_01C08EC8.5B230900 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: glyph collections viz font encodings

Javier

> - 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.

I am not quite sure what you are saying is the problem = here.
Do you think that these two should be `the same' in = some ways in which
they are not in current fonts?

In particular, are concerned about:

-- only differences in the final glyphs

or

-- differences in the metrics (these can cause major = differences in
   the typesetting).


In fact differences equally great in the actual glyphs = can happen
simply because two versions of what claims to be the = same font are
finally used in the actual rendering on some actual = physical device.


>   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.

This is true and a fact of the universe (and always = will be).

The interesting question is: what differences in the = font resources are important?
How can a typesetting system usefully interact with = these differences?

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

Probably: but please be specific about what issues you = think need to
be dealt with --- then maybe we can deal with some of = them by turning
them into non-issues:-).


chris

------_=_NextPart_001_01C08EC8.5B230900--