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 f1EBrLH31397 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:53:21 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1EBrLd05911 . for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:53:21 +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 f1EBrKM16075 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:53:20 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0967C.BA2D0E80" 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 MAA12113 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:53:19 +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 mailgate1.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.11.0/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1EBrIM16067 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:53:18 +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 <6.8CB26CF5@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:53:11 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 488340 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:53:14 +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 MAA19306 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:53:13 +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 MAA48162 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:53:13 +0100 Received: from abel.math.umu.se (abel.math.umu.se [130.239.20.139]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1EBrEx13248 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:53:14 +0100 (MET) Received: from [130.239.20.144] (mac144.math.umu.se [130.239.20.144]) by abel.math.umu.se (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id MAA07207; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:51:21 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: References: <14984.13275.957442.490284@istrati.zdv.uni-mainz.de> Return-Path: X-Sender: lars@abel.math.umu.se x-mime-autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de id MAA19307 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: insufficent NFSS model (?) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:53:11 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lars_Hellstr=F6m?= 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: 3918 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0967C.BA2D0E80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 10.18 +0100 2001-02-13, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: >Frank, > >Javier explained the idea somehow. I'm going into complete explanation >here. Please ask for clarification if there are ambiguities. > >In Persian, we usually do not have the three classic families. In Iran, >there is rarely a need for typewriter style, that's only used for Latin >texts, and in the case they really need to show Persian on the screen, >they use screenshots. Also, I know only three non-bitmap typewriter = fonts, >and the only almost-free one is MS Courier. I use one of the other two >when writing a manual, but I'm among the few who use such a thing. But that's not the NFSS, is it? The NFSS is the classification and selection of fonts using the encoding/family/series/shape/size model, \rmfamily and friends belong to a higher level of font selection. (I've called it the "author level" in some previous mail long ago.) I have suggested that the mapping from the author level to the NFSS = level should be templated. It is quite possible that one should use a = different template for Persian than for latin. In any way the mapping as it is = done today is far too rigid; the FDs should be allowed to influence what the selected values for the NFSS attributes finally become (e.g. for fonts without a bx series, \bfseries should choose the b series; today that = kind of thing is accomplished by substitutions when mapping NFSS = specifications to TFM names). >We also do not have equivalents of serif and sans-serif, there are = fonts >that have few details, using simple curves. They are usually called >"Traffic"-like ("Traffic" is a font family itself, so that's somehow >like saying "helvetica"-like, and is usually used for text on traffic >signs). But we can't classify them according to this, because there is = a >spectrum between traffic for example, and things like "Lotus" and >"Linotron" that are equivalents of serif fonts and are used widely for >normal text. > >In the absense of that model, designers choose some families (for >a mathematical book, I've seen from as few as one, to as many as six or >seven), and specify that this heading or that caption should come out = as >in this family and that shape and size. I can't really see that this is much different from what happens for = latin fonts. The "three families" model is very much influenced by what is = exists within Computer Modern, but most font designs only contain a family of = one of the three kinds. >Also, there's no "bx" (only "b"), Again, that's the influence of CM. Some latin font families only exist = in one or two series (usually m and b), for others there are dozens of = series. >there's no "sc" (no replacement), Now we get to the real differences, but not having a certain shape is no catastrophe. Very few latin fonts have a ui shape (yes, there are LaTeX kernel commands selecting this shape), but people seem to cope anyway. >and >usually there's no "it". Designers like to use real italics (known as >"iranic" here, because they tend to left instead of right), but only a >few families also have an italic companion with them (they are usually >considered different families by vendors here, and there is "Azin" and >"Iranic Azin" for example). Because of this, sometimes people use an >Iranic font from one family, and an upright font from another. BTW, = people >have forgotten that there exist real italics, and use slanted and >backslanted fonts (with the name of "iranic" when it tends to left, and >"italic" when it tends to left). This could use some clarification. Is iranic like the latin italic but leaning the other way (negative italic slant)? (Please confirm or = correct.) Could one say that cmff is an iranic font? As for being distinct = families, how are the iranic/italic fonts used? For emphasizing, like italic, or = for what? >Because of this lack of option, outline and shaded-outline shapes are = used >much more in technical books, sometimes together with slanted and >backslanted. The model that is used in available Persian software, >modeled from how designers think, is something like this: > >family weight shape >------ ------ ----- >normal medium upright >italics bold slanted >some others outline backslanted > shaded-outline NFSS classifies outline as a shape, and thus shaded-outline should be a shape as well. IMO the list of standardized shape names for NFSS is much too short, which is probably an important reason why people seem to be = fond of declaring several NFSS families for what is really fonts from the = same family that differ in shape. Lars Hellstr=F6m ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0967C.BA2D0E80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: insufficent NFSS model (?)

At 10.18 +0100 2001-02-13, Roozbeh Pournader = wrote:
>Frank,
>
>Javier explained the idea somehow. I'm going into = complete explanation
>here. Please ask for clarification if there are = ambiguities.
>
>In Persian, we usually do not have the three = classic families. In Iran,
>there is rarely a need for typewriter style, = that's only used for Latin
>texts, and in the case they really need to show = Persian on the screen,
>they use screenshots. Also, I know only three = non-bitmap typewriter fonts,
>and the only almost-free one is MS Courier. I use = one of the other two
>when writing a manual, but I'm among the few who = use such a thing.

But that's not the NFSS, is it? The NFSS is the = classification and
selection of fonts using the = encoding/family/series/shape/size model,
\rmfamily and friends belong to a higher level of = font selection. (I've
called it the "author level" in some = previous mail long ago.)

I have suggested that the mapping from the author = level to the NFSS level
should be templated. It is quite possible that one = should use a different
template for Persian than for latin. In any way the = mapping as it is done
today is far too rigid; the FDs should be allowed to = influence what the
selected values for the NFSS attributes finally = become (e.g. for fonts
without a bx series, \bfseries should choose the b = series; today that kind
of thing is accomplished by substitutions when = mapping NFSS specifications
to TFM names).

>We also do not have equivalents of serif and = sans-serif, there are fonts
>that have few details, using simple curves. They = are usually called
>"Traffic"-like ("Traffic" is = a font family itself, so that's somehow
>like saying "helvetica"-like, and is = usually used for text on traffic
>signs). But we can't classify them according to = this, because there is a
>spectrum between traffic for example, and things = like "Lotus" and
>"Linotron" that are equivalents of = serif fonts and are used widely for
>normal text.
>
>In the absense of that model, designers choose = some families (for
>a mathematical book, I've seen from as few as = one, to as many as six or
>seven), and specify that this heading or that = caption should come out as
>in this family and that shape and size.

I can't really see that this is much different from = what happens for latin
fonts. The "three families" model is very = much influenced by what is exists
within Computer Modern, but most font designs only = contain a family of one
of the three kinds.

>Also, there's no "bx" (only = "b"),

Again, that's the influence of CM. Some latin font = families only exist in
one or two series (usually m and b), for others there = are dozens of series.

>there's no "sc" (no replacement),

Now we get to the real differences, but not having a = certain shape is no
catastrophe. Very few latin fonts have a ui shape = (yes, there are LaTeX
kernel commands selecting this shape), but people = seem to cope anyway.

>and
>usually there's no "it". Designers like = to use real italics (known as
>"iranic" here, because they tend to = left instead of right), but only a
>few families also have an italic companion with = them (they are usually
>considered different families by vendors here, = and there is "Azin" and
>"Iranic Azin" for example). Because of = this, sometimes people use an
>Iranic font from one family, and an upright font = from another. BTW, people
>have forgotten that there exist real italics, and = use slanted and
>backslanted fonts (with the name of = "iranic" when it tends to left, and
>"italic" when it tends to left).

This could use some clarification. Is iranic like the = latin italic but
leaning the other way (negative italic slant)? = (Please confirm or correct.)
Could one say that cmff is an iranic font? As for = being distinct families,
how are the iranic/italic fonts used? For = emphasizing, like italic, or for
what?

>Because of this lack of option, outline and = shaded-outline shapes are used
>much more in technical books, sometimes together = with slanted and
>backslanted. The model that is used in available = Persian software,
>modeled from how designers think, is something = like this:
>
>family        = weight           &= nbsp; shape
>------        = ------           &= nbsp; -----
>normal        = medium           &= nbsp; upright
>italics       = bold           &nb= sp;   slanted
>some others   = outline           = backslanted
>          =     shaded-outline

NFSS classifies outline as a shape, and thus = shaded-outline should be a
shape as well. IMO the list of standardized shape = names for NFSS is much
too short, which is probably an important reason why = people seem to be fond
of declaring several NFSS families for what is really = fonts from the same
family that differ in shape.

Lars Hellstr=F6m

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0967C.BA2D0E80--