Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 6 May 2003 00:23:24 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h45MNKPQ029317 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 00:23:22 +0200 Received: from sun.dante.de (root@sun.dante.de [134.100.9.52]) by rzdspc1.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h45MN7tE011165 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Tue, 6 May 2003 00:23:08 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C31354.F11E9600" Received: from rzdspc1.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (root@rzdspc1.informatik.uni-hamburg.de [134.100.9.61]) by sun.dante.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h45MMee1022867 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 00:22:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.186]) by rzdspc1.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h45MMZtD011134 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 00:22:35 +0200 (CEST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from [212.227.126.160] (helo=mrelayng.kundenserver.de) by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 19CoLv-0006uu-00; Tue, 06 May 2003 00:22:31 +0200 Received: from [80.129.10.63] (helo=istrati.mittelbach-online.de) by mrelayng.kundenserver.de with asmtp (TLSv1:EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.35 #1) id 19CoLv-0008L8-00; Tue, 06 May 2003 00:22:31 +0200 Received: (from frank@localhost) by istrati.mittelbach-online.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id h45MMF431048; Tue, 6 May 2003 00:22:15 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <16054.53215.944681.870836@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 May 2003 22:23:24.0319 (UTC) FILETIME=[F14F42F0:01C31354] X-Authentication-Warning: istrati.mittelbach-online.de: frank set sender to frank@mittelbach-online.de using -f X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: -16.7 () IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,USER_AGENT_VM,X_AUTH_WARNING Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: textcomp once more Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 23:22:15 +0100 Message-ID: <16054.58391.502043.587339@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: textcomp once more Thread-Index: AcMTVPGY8oRlUA9pQaaDJJXgTY/caw== From: "Frank Mittelbach" To: "Robin Fairbairns" Cc: "Walter Schmidt" , , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lars_Hellstr=F7m?= , Reply-To: "Frank Mittelbach" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4616 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C31354.F11E9600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Robin, > > i wasn't trying to snipe at you if that how you understood it. >=20 > no: but it's a bit of a sore point with me. i ground to a halt (as i > described), and was quite relieved when the excuse arrived. good :-) > istr you wanted my approval for someone to use it as a basis of > something for a dante meeting. i don't recall what became of that. did i? how long was that ago? > if what i say above doesn't help, perhaps i could take another look = at > what i already have... once i've got the pile of other vital things > off my plate. well, it doesn't help in terms of the disagreement between Walter and me = which would sumarize like this: exists: document using \usepackage{textcomp} and some of its glyphs case A: we add \usepackage{XYZ} to it because somebody told us that this = is the way to turn an arbitrary doc to use XYZ text fonts but XYZ is not = known to textcomp. case B: the document contained already some special fonts that a) have a = "fairly complete" set of TS1 glyphs b) are not part of the standard bunch of = fonts like PSNFSS, lucida, ..., ie textcomp doesn't know about this font = family and c) the document makes use of, say \texteuro and \textdied being glyphs = that work now with a conservative default as I suggest we get in A) the user hasn't used anything outside the "safe" set of glyphs no error and correct output, if he has he gets the error that \texteuro and \textdied (or whatever) are (probably) not available and that if he thinks his fonts have them he should load \usepackage[full]{textcomp} but check the printed output in B) he will get an unnecessary error and explanation how to a void it my claim is that is understandable without further documentation and = that case A is the majority case and within A *most* fonts as of now will not = generate any spurious errors but real, meaning most fonts for TeX will not have = glyphs outside safe with Walter's suggestion we get in A no error no warning but a corrupted document if anything outside = "safe" was actually used (because it worked with CM) otherwise again no error = and correct document in B we do not get an error and the document compiles directly. now I think the first situation is far less understandable (that LaTeX = is not complaining in case something really goes wrong) compared with the = situation that it does complain that something is likely to be wrong but says how = to make it work, while Walter thinks it is the otherway around: people = understand that adding a package to use "Times" because the journal says, so might = mean that the document has square bits of ink instead of gyphs in some = places, but on the other hand do not understand that LaTeX warns them about that = possible situation (in case it thinks this might be the case) that's about it in a nutshell, the question is what serves the majority = of the users better and what produces more questions to any maintainers. so far i heard Donald (in favor for Walter's approach, but i would like to make sure = that he actually saw the above alternatives) Lars inbetween (i think) or perhaps also leaning towards "unsafe" as a = default anybody else online with an opinion? (yes I know your's Walter :-) good night frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C31354.F11E9600 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: textcomp once more

Robin,

 > > i wasn't trying to snipe at you if = that how you understood it.
 >
 > no: but it's a bit of a sore point with = me.  i ground to a halt (as i
 > described), and was quite relieved when = the excuse arrived.

good :-)

 > istr you wanted my approval for someone to = use it as a basis of
 > something for a dante meeting.  i = don't recall what became of that.

did i? how long was that ago?

 > if what i say above doesn't help, perhaps i = could take another look at
 > what i already have...  once i've got = the pile of other vital things
 > off my plate.

well, it doesn't help in terms of the disagreement = between Walter and me which
would sumarize like this:

exists: document using \usepackage{textcomp} and some = of its glyphs

case A: we add \usepackage{XYZ} to it because somebody = told us that this is
the way to turn an arbitrary doc to use XYZ text = fonts but XYZ is not known to
textcomp.

case B: the document contained already some special = fonts that a) have a "fairly
complete" set of TS1 glyphs b) are not part of = the standard bunch of fonts
like PSNFSS, lucida, ..., ie textcomp doesn't know = about this font family and
c) the document makes use of, say  \texteuro and = \textdied being glyphs that work


now  with a conservative default as I suggest we = get

 in A) the user hasn't used anything outside the = "safe" set of
 glyphs no error and correct output, if he has = he gets the error that
 \texteuro and \textdied (or whatever) are = (probably) not
 available and that if he thinks his fonts have = them he should load
 \usepackage[full]{textcomp}   but = check the printed output

 in B) he will get an unnecessary error and = explanation how to a void it


my claim is that is understandable without further = documentation and that case
A is the majority case and within A *most* fonts as = of now will not generate
any spurious errors but real, meaning most fonts for = TeX will not have glyphs
outside safe


with Walter's suggestion we get

  in A no error no warning but a corrupted = document if anything outside "safe"
  was actually used (because it worked with CM) = otherwise again no error and
  correct document

  in  B we do not get an error and the = document compiles directly.


now I think the first situation is far less = understandable (that LaTeX is not
complaining in case something really goes wrong) = compared with the situation
that it does complain that something is likely to be = wrong but says how to
make it work, while Walter thinks it is the otherway = around: people understand
that adding a package to use "Times" = because the journal says, so might mean
that the document has square bits of ink instead of = gyphs in some places, but
on the other hand do not understand that LaTeX warns = them about that possible
situation (in case it thinks this might be the = case)


that's about it in a nutshell, the question is what = serves the majority of the
users better and what produces more questions to any = maintainers.

so far i heard

 Donald (in favor for Walter's approach, but i = would like to make sure that he
         = actually saw the above alternatives)

 Lars inbetween (i think) or perhaps also leaning = towards "unsafe" as a default


anybody else online with an opinion? (yes I know = your's Walter :-)

good night
frank


------_=_NextPart_001_01C31354.F11E9600--