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 f16Bg2H05912 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:42:03 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f16Bg2d04496 . for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:42:02 +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 f16Bg2722431 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:42:02 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C09031.D2C07780" 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 MAA21673 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:42:01 +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 f16Bg1722427 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:42:01 +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 <10.A6B636D0@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:41:55 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 488103 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:41:56 +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 MAA00827 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:41:55 +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 MAA44494 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:41:54 +0100 Received: from moutvdom01.kundenserver.de (moutvdom01.kundenserver.de [195.20.224.200]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f16Bfsu06442 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:41:54 +0100 (MET) Received: from [195.20.224.204] (helo=mrvdom00.kundenserver.de) by moutvdom01.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14Q6VH-0006yn-00 for LATEX-L@urz.uni-heidelberg.de; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:41:47 +0100 Received: from dialin337.zdv.uni-mainz.de ([134.93.175.37] helo=istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de) by mrvdom00.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14Q6V6-0000Op-00 for LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:41:36 +0100 Received: (from latex3@localhost) by istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id MAA20670; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:31:39 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under Emacs 20.4.1 X-Authentication-Warning: istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de: latex3 set sender to frank@mittelbach-online.de using -f Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: glyph collections viz font encodings Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:31:39 +0100 Message-ID: <14975.57499.573295.373950@istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Frank Mittelbach" 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: 3714 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09031.D2C07780 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Javier, > Actually, this is not a criticism to this approach, just an issue. = While > there are free PostScript ot1cmr fonts, there are only MF t1cmr ones, = which > to me is a huge difference. Sometimes I combine Palatino (T1) and = cmtt > (OT1), > and \selectfont{T1,OT1} is not enough. The solution I took in my = macros was > to allow explicit declarations like: > \SetFontEnconding{cmtt}{OT1} found that by now in the code (it wasn't in the general documentation) well, can we analyse that a bit? what exactly is the problem here? or, say, why do you want to do that? it seems to me that this all boils down to "i want to ensure that all is Type1" so that i get proper pdf files. or am i wrong? perhaps i'm wrong and there are other reasons , but the above seems to = me the kind of natural reason. so perhaps it is not the encoding you really want to force but to = prevent selection of certain fonts. in that case, wouldn't it be better if we = could come up with a different method of specifying this? assume for a moment that you have a font family with a large number of = glyphs (say CM fonts :-) then a setting like yours \SetFontEnconding{cmtt}{OT1} would not work very well in a document with spanish and russian text. = why? because there are russian CM fonts at least they are identified as cmr = and cmtt and so on. (and i think this is not really wrong even though = perhaps not absolutely right either. but they have been made to look and fit the = latin CM fonts). so fixing the encoding to OT1 would through typerwriter in the russian = part of the document off track since that one would need LCY encoding. i don't know what is the right approach but if it is really something = related to type1 viz MF fonts then perhaps the whole thing should and can be = done differently what do you think? frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09031.D2C07780 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: glyph collections viz font encodings

Javier,

 > Actually, this is not a criticism to this = approach, just an issue. While
 > there are free PostScript ot1cmr fonts, = there are only MF t1cmr ones, which
 > to me is a huge difference. Sometimes I = combine Palatino (T1) and cmtt
 > (OT1),
 > and \selectfont{T1,OT1} is not enough. The = solution I took in my macros was
 > to allow explicit declarations = like:
 >   = \SetFontEnconding{cmtt}{OT1}

found that by now in the code (it wasn't in the = general documentation)

well, can we analyse that a bit? what exactly is the = problem here?
or, say, why do you want to do that?

it seems to me that this all boils down to "i = want to ensure that all is
Type1" so that i get proper pdf files. or am i = wrong?

perhaps i'm wrong and there are other reasons , but = the above seems to me the
kind of natural reason.

so perhaps it is not the encoding you really want to = force but to prevent
selection of certain fonts. in that case, wouldn't it = be better if we could
come up with a different method of specifying = this?

assume for a moment that you have a font family with a = large number of glyphs
(say CM fonts :-) then a setting like yours

   \SetFontEnconding{cmtt}{OT1}

would not work very well in a document with spanish = and russian text. why?

because there are russian CM fonts at least they are = identified as cmr and
cmtt and so on. (and i think this is not really wrong = even though perhaps not
absolutely right either. but they have been made to = look and fit the latin CM
fonts).

so fixing the encoding to OT1 would through = typerwriter in the russian part of
the document off track since that one would need LCY = encoding.


i don't know what is the right approach but if it is = really something related
to type1 viz MF fonts then perhaps the whole thing = should and can be done
differently

what do you think?

frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C09031.D2C07780--