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 f18FZ6H31020 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:35:06 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f18FZ6d13792 . for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:35:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C091E4.B6187100" 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 f18FZ5719396 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:35:05 +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 QAA19475 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:35:05 +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 f18FZ3719386 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:35:03 +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 <12.895654B1@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:34:57 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 488552 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:34:59 +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 QAA23045 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:34:57 +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 QAA19518 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:34:58 +0100 Received: from lumiere.idris.fr (lumiere.idris.fr [130.84.8.14]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f18FYwu18712 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:34:58 +0100 (MET) Received: from mira.idris.fr (gaulle@mira.idris.fr [130.84.12.100]) by lumiere.idris.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA468346 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:34:58 +0100 (CET) Received: (from gaulle@localhost) by mira.idris.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA25758; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:34:57 +0100 Return-Path: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: default inputenc/fontenc tight to language Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:34:56 +0100 Message-ID: <14978.48288.789043.192865@mira.idris.fr> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Bernard GAULLE (CNRS/IDRIS - France) " 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: 3755 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C091E4.B6187100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable David Carlisle writes: > > 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 frankly speaking you never were all attention about that. Do you know that all Personal TeX products, since 1986, are shipped with the mltex extension? > So I've always assumed mltex usage was very low, virtual argument refused. > > 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. sorry to say i already said that to you at least a dozen of times. > I knew some people were not happy with some of the shapes of "new" > glyphs in ec, which is a matter of taste (but not discussed in the original cm fonts) and "bounding box" too (in fact, only char height is often wrong). > but I thought that the vf files put the accents just where > TeX would have put them (and that mltex did the same). web2c TeX do it correctly with the mltex option. Please don't let people believe mltex in another kind of TeX engine; it's a full TeX which is trip test compliant. > 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. metafont font designers should not have technical pb ;=3D) and all tools are theorically available to vf designers. But is it enough (via an automatic processing) to produce a good font? > > 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? i spoke about a new feature to implement in output drivers using vf to give access to floating diacritics. Far from your preoccupation i guess... --bg ------_=_NextPart_001_01C091E4.B6187100 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: default inputenc/fontenc tight to language

David Carlisle writes:
 > > 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

frankly speaking you never were all attention about = that.
Do you know that all Personal TeX products, since = 1986,
are shipped with the mltex extension?

 >  So I've always assumed mltex usage = was very low,

virtual argument refused.

 > > 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.

sorry to say i already said that to you at least a = dozen of times.

 > I knew some people were not happy with some = of the shapes of "new"
 > glyphs in ec,

which is a matter of taste (but not discussed in the = original cm fonts)
and "bounding box" too (in fact, only char = height is often wrong).

 > but I thought that the vf files put the = accents just where
 > TeX would have put them (and that mltex = did the same).

web2c TeX do it correctly with the mltex option. = Please don't let
people believe mltex in another kind of TeX engine; = it's a full TeX
which is trip test compliant.


 > 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.

metafont font designers should not have technical pb = ;=3D)
and all tools are theorically available to vf = designers.
But is it enough (via an automatic processing) to = produce a good font?

 > >  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?

i spoke about a new feature to implement in output = drivers using vf
to give access to floating diacritics. Far from your = preoccupation i
guess...

  --bg

------_=_NextPart_001_01C091E4.B6187100--