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 f1IAtjf12797 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:55:45 +0100 Received: by webgate.proteosys.de (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f1IAtjd22792 . for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:55:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C09999.57E44E80" 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 f1IAtfH17421 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:55:41 +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 LAA07453 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:55:41 +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 f1IAteQ00019 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:55:40 +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 <0.28507A11@mail.listserv.gmd.de>; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:55:31 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 489375 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:55:37 +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 LAA00687 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:55:24 +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 LAA48696 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:55:22 +0100 Received: from smtp.wanadoo.es (m1smtpisp03.wanadoo.es [62.36.220.63] (may be forged)) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1IAtKx06536 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:55:20 +0100 (MET) Received: from [62.36.81.148] (usuario2-36-81-148.dialup.uni2.es [62.36.81.148]) by smtp.wanadoo.es (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1IAtHi20551 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:55:18 +0100 (MET) Return-Path: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) x-mime-autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de id LAA00688 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: glyph collections viz font encodings Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:51:57 +0100 Message-ID: <200102181055.f1IAtHi20551@smtp.wanadoo.es> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Javier Bezos" 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: 3966 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09999.57E44E80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Frank Mittelbach a =E9crit : > >> 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? > > well, no. I don't even agree that it's a good reason: make a virtual > font with the glyphs you want in the required encoding. If the = encoding > was meant for your language, then you can probably enhance the > typography. The main problem with VF's is that "_a_ virtual font" is often wrong. Usually it's "_a hundred_ virtual fonts." Javier ------_=_NextPart_001_01C09999.57E44E80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: glyph collections viz font encodings

> Frank Mittelbach a =E9crit :
>
>> 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?
>
> well, no. I don't even agree that it's a good = reason: make a virtual
> font with the glyphs you want in the required = encoding. If the encoding
> was meant for your language, then you can = probably enhance the
> typography.

The main problem with VF's is that "_a_ virtual = font" is often
wrong. Usually it's "_a hundred_ virtual = fonts."

Javier

------_=_NextPart_001_01C09999.57E44E80--