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 f1BMPtH12429 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:25:55 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1BMPsd26598 . for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:25:54 +0100 Received: from mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailserver1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.30]) by mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1BMPnM18732 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:25:49 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C09479.99489B80" Received: from mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE [134.93.8.56]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA07205 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:25:49 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.listserv.gmd.de (mail.listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.5]) by mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1BMPjM18728 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:25:45 +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 <11.6602A27A@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:25:35 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 487882 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:25:38 +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 XAA28352 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:25:37 +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 XAA37316 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:25:38 +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 f1BMPbu13009 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:25:37 +0100 (MET) Received: from [195.20.224.220] (helo=mrvdom04.kundenserver.de) by moutvdom01.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14S4vy-0004ww-00 for LATEX-L@urz.uni-heidelberg.de; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:25:30 +0100 Received: from manz-3e364839.pool.mediaways.net ([62.54.72.57] helo=istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de) by mrvdom04.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14S4vz-0000zs-00 for LATEX-L@URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:25:32 +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 XAA13434; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:23:20 +0100 In-Reply-To: <200102101651.f1AGpGi00601@smtp.wanadoo.es> References: <200102101651.f1AGpGi00601@smtp.wanadoo.es> 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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:23:20 +0100 Message-ID: <14983.4312.101767.632716@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: 3831 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09479.99489B80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Actually all I wanted to do today regarding LaTeX was replying to = Javier's mail. instead ... Anway, here we are now (still before midnight) ... > > 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? > > That could be a possible reason, but very likely some people could > find other reasons. But yes, that is what I was thinking about. is there _anybody else_ who can come up with another reason why one = wants to restrict a list of possible encodings (of the same font, or say set of glyphs!) other than some of the actual fonts are not suitable for the = target device, eg pdf output? if so please tell us on the list. > More generally, the automatic selection should be done taking > into account possible restrictions/features defined by the user. > (Which restrictions/features can be set is to be studied.) it is certainly true that such wanted restrictions/features should be = studied but can you give us any clue what you are thinking about? having looked a bit at the current internals of NFSS2 (my God last i = really did this was long long time ago) i can see some easy way to attach such restrictions on the level of either a) the font family b) the encoding/fontfamily combination but i'm not sure one wants to look at it in this way. only what could be = the way to look at it? > It should be noted, however, that text also contains symbols and that > usually we are using _two_ encodings -- if we say = \defaultencoding{T1}, > \textdagger is taken from cmsy, which is the default symbol font = (OMS). > So we have another problem when selecting an encoding -- in fact > we must select two. do we? i'm not so sure. things like \textdagger aren't really tight to a language, are they? i mean within one font you will have not different variants to be selected depending on the text being French or German or = so. at least i would consider this extremely unlikely and would think a = language model should not explicitly build for it. however you are right, that there might be the problem that for some = fonts you have TS1 available and for others you don't and you might want to mix = the fonts. in the latter case things get more difficult. > Instead of multilingual documents, I would rather speak of = multiscript > documents, since imo this concept is more important. Of course, = different > languages use the latin script in different ways, but when there are > languages using diffent scripts there are additional problems. For > example, in a text containing both latin and cyrillic scripts the > following line of code might not make sense: > > \usepackage{times} > \usepackage{textcomp} > > Is times applied to both scripts? not sure what you mean by applied to both scripts? the "times" or the "textcomp"? > What happens if for some reason > I like cyrillic times and latin palatino? first of all that needs to be specifiable and that is an interesting = problem in itself (though solvable in a decent way). it is not quite clear which atributes should be modified from language then. i guess the right = approach is to consider all commands that are described on p173 of the LaTeX = Companion (eg \famildefault ... \updefault) as language dependent commands but it is = kind of tricky to find the right level for specification and behaviour > Which symbol fonts are used? well TS1ptm for cyrillic and TS1ppl for latin > And if there is no times font for cyrillic? too bad then you shouldn't request it (and you get the default cyrillic = (eg default T2A font) which might be some cymr font) > Or there is no symbol > font? again, you get the default TS1 font. but there is not much you can do = about that since if you ask for, say \textyen you better select a font = actually containing it, don't you? (okay, i'm simplifying but it is getting late now :-) > If you use latin with tibetan, things are more complicated > because tibetan doesn't understand what a times font is, and again, ??? you mean, there is no tibetan Times glyphs/font? --- covered I think = by the posibility to select \rmdefault etc on a per language basis and by = the fact that for each encoding there is a default font which you get if = things fail. > what happens if a certain script requires two or more metrics and/or > encodings? i would be grateful if you elaborate on the last two with examples. > Finally, it remains the problem of what happens if people dislike > the default settings. But that is unavoidable... it is a real problem if you forget to build your system in a way that = the defaults can be easily altered. if they can it might still be a problem, = but then i vote for, too bad (if you honnestly think you have chosen good defaults:-) really good night now frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09479.99489B80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: glyph collections viz font encodings

Actually all I wanted to do today regarding LaTeX was = replying to Javier's
mail. instead ...

Anway, here we are now (still before midnight) = ...

 > > 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?
 >
 > That could be a possible reason, but very = likely some people could
 > find other reasons. But yes, that is what = I was thinking about.

is there _anybody else_ who can come up with another = reason why one wants to
restrict a list of possible encodings (of the same = font, or say set of
glyphs!) other than some of the actual fonts are not = suitable for the target
device, eg pdf output?

if so please tell us on the list.

 > More generally, the automatic selection = should be done taking
 > into account possible = restrictions/features defined by the user.
 > (Which restrictions/features can be set is = to be studied.)

it is certainly true that such wanted = restrictions/features should be studied
but can you give us any clue what you are thinking = about?


having looked a bit at the current internals of NFSS2 = (my God last i really
did this was long long time ago) i can see some easy = way to attach such
restrictions on the level of either

 a) the font family
 b) the encoding/fontfamily combination

but i'm not sure one wants to look at it in this way. = only what could be the
way to look at it?



 > It should be noted, however, that text also = contains symbols and that
 > usually we are using _two_ encodings -- if = we say \defaultencoding{T1},
 > \textdagger is taken from cmsy, which is = the default symbol font (OMS).
 > So we have another problem when selecting = an encoding -- in fact
 > we must select two.

do we? i'm not so sure. things like \textdagger aren't = really tight to a
language, are they? i mean within one font you will = have not different
variants to be selected depending on the text being = French or German or so. at
least i would consider this extremely unlikely and = would think a language
model should not explicitly build for it.

however you are right, that there might be the problem = that for some fonts you
have TS1 available and for others you don't and you = might want to mix the
fonts. in the latter case things get more = difficult.

 > Instead of multilingual documents, I would = rather speak of multiscript
 > documents, since imo this concept is more = important. Of course, different
 > languages use the latin script in = different ways, but when there are
 > languages using diffent scripts there are = additional problems. For
 > example, in a text containing both latin = and cyrillic scripts the
 > following line of code might not make = sense:
 >
 > \usepackage{times}
 > \usepackage{textcomp}
 >
 > Is times applied to both scripts?

not sure what you mean by applied to both scripts? the = "times" or the
"textcomp"?


 > What happens if for some reason
 > I like cyrillic times and latin = palatino?

first of all that needs to be specifiable and that is = an interesting problem
in itself (though solvable in a decent way). it is = not quite clear which
atributes should be modified from language then. i = guess the right approach is
to consider all commands that are described on p173 = of the LaTeX Companion (eg
\famildefault ... \updefault) as language dependent = commands but it is kind of
tricky to find the right level for specification and = behaviour

 > Which symbol fonts are used?

well TS1ptm for cyrillic and TS1ppl for latin

 > And if there is no times font for = cyrillic?

too bad then you shouldn't request it (and you get the = default cyrillic (eg
default T2A font) which might be some cymr = font)

 > Or there is no symbol
 > font?

again, you get the default TS1 font. but there is not = much you can do about
that since if you ask for, say \textyen you better = select a font actually
containing it, don't you?

(okay, i'm simplifying but it is getting late now = :-)

 > If you use latin with tibetan, things are = more complicated
 > because tibetan doesn't understand what a = times font is, and again,

??? you mean, there is no tibetan Times glyphs/font? = --- covered I think by
the posibility to select \rmdefault etc on a per = language basis and by the
fact that for each encoding there is a default font = which you get if things
fail.

 > what happens if a certain script requires = two or more metrics and/or
 > encodings?

i would be grateful if you elaborate on the last two = with examples.


 > Finally, it remains the problem of what = happens if people dislike
 > the default settings. But that is = unavoidable...

it is a real problem if you forget to build your = system in a way that the
defaults can be easily altered. if they can it might = still be a problem, but
then i vote for, too bad (if you honnestly think you = have chosen good
defaults:-)


really good night now
frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C09479.99489B80--