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 f18E3aH30674 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:03:36 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f18E3Dd13508 . for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:03:17 +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 f18E37709532 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:03:07 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C091D7.EDCCEC00" 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 PAA23125 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:03:01 +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 f18E30709496 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:03:01 +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 <11.AD843B28@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:02:54 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 488374 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:02:56 +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 PAA20142 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:02:55 +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 PAA38174 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:02:54 +0100 Received: from server-9.tower-4.starlabs.net (mail.london-1.starlabs.net [212.125.75.12]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id f18E2pu21245 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:02:52 +0100 (MET) Received: (qmail 20001 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2001 14:00:29 -0000 Received: from nagmx1e.nag.co.uk (HELO nag.co.uk) (62.232.54.130) by server-9.tower-4.starlabs.net with SMTP; 8 Feb 2001 14:00:29 -0000 Received: from penguin.nag.co.uk (IDENT:root@penguin.nag.co.uk [192.156.217.14]) by nag.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17097 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:02:42 GMT Received: by penguin.nag.co.uk (8.9.3) id OAA16774; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:02:42 GMT In-Reply-To: <14978.41227.305822.700930@mira.idris.fr> (gaulle@IDRIS.FR) References: <14978.41227.305822.700930@mira.idris.fr> Return-Path: X-VirusChecked: Checked Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: default inputenc/fontenc tight to language Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:02:42 +0100 Message-ID: <200102081402.OAA16774@penguin.nag.co.uk> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "David Carlisle" 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: 3753 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C091D7.EDCCEC00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > And let other europeans continue to use the --mltex > option of web2c while they don't need more for their default format. As far as I can recall we've only ever had one or two requests to for latex to support mltex rather than T1 encoding with standard tex "out of the box". So I've always assumed mltex usage was very low, even in Europe (we get a lot of comments about font encoding issues from people in mainland Europe, it's not just that I happen to live on an island). Of course if people want to use mltex it's there, and latex can use it (as I suppose it does in your distribution, which is fair enough). > I don't say that the solution is not going via virtual fonts; > i just say that quality is not sufficient at this time Hmm this is interesting, but not something I was aware of. I knew some people were not happy with some of the shapes of "new" glyphs in ec, but I thought that the vf files put the accents just where TeX would have put them (and that mltex did the same). If you say that the current vf files don't do that I believe you (my English eye isn't = too sensitive to accent positioning:-) But more interesting to me is to know whether any differences are due to technical abilities of the two systems or whether they are just different design choices by the authors of the vf fonts. > i think to accent placement made dynamically by the output driver on > the basis of \special commands Unless I am totally confused, that isn't what mltex does, is it? > Clearly i refuse any solution which would give me, defaultly, > a less quality output, Fair enough. Getting quality output is of course the aim of the game. > due to the default (v)fonts in use. As I say above I'd be interested to know whether you think this is due to inherent features of the vf mechanism, or just a correctable defect in the vf fonts currently available. Also to give me a helping hand, what to look out for if comparing cmr-with-mltex v ec v ae. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet = delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information = visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp ------_=_NextPart_001_01C091D7.EDCCEC00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: default inputenc/fontenc tight to language

> And let other europeans continue to use the = --mltex
> option of web2c while they don't need more for = their default format.

As far as I can recall we've only ever had one or two = requests to
for latex to support mltex rather than T1 encoding = with standard tex
"out of the box". So I've always assumed = mltex usage was very low, even
in Europe (we get a lot of comments about font = encoding issues from
people in mainland Europe, it's not just that I = happen to live on an
island). Of course if people want to use mltex it's = there, and latex can
use it (as I suppose it does in your distribution, = which is fair
enough).

> I don't say that the solution is not going via = virtual fonts;
> i just say that quality is not sufficient at = this time

Hmm this is interesting, but not something I was aware = of.
I knew some people were not happy with some of the = shapes of "new"
glyphs in ec, but I thought that the vf files put the = accents just where
TeX would have put them (and that mltex did the = same). If you say that
the current vf files don't do that I believe you (my = English eye isn't too
sensitive to accent positioning:-) But more = interesting to me is to know
whether any differences are due to technical = abilities of the two
systems or whether they are just different design = choices by the authors
of the vf fonts.

>  i think to accent placement made = dynamically by the output driver on
>  the basis of \special commands

Unless I am totally confused, that isn't what mltex = does, is it?


> Clearly i refuse any solution which would give = me, defaultly,
> a less quality output,

Fair enough. Getting quality output is of course the = aim of the game.

>  due to the default (v)fonts in use.

As I say above I'd be interested to know whether you = think this is due
to inherent features of the vf mechanism, or just a = correctable defect
in the vf fonts currently available.

Also to give me a helping hand, what to look out for = if comparing
cmr-with-mltex v ec v ae.

David

________________________________________________________________= _____
This message has been checked for all known viruses = by Star Internet delivered
through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For = further information visit
http://www.star.net.uk/stats.as= p

------_=_NextPart_001_01C091D7.EDCCEC00--