Re: 2.99.7 ConTeXt, URW-Fonts
Martin Schröder wrote: On 2004-12-27 20:18:50 +0100, Hartmut Henkel wrote: And the following missing files generate "cannot open font map file" warnings: ec-public-pfl.map ec-urw-palatino.map These two files i couldn't find anywhere, but it seems that it's harmless when they are missing. Hans, what's the story behind these files? these are needed when one uses ec metrics; new versions of context will no longer preload map files because the latest pdftex's can load on each page (used to be page 1, so one had to load map files on forehand); Hans - Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -
Re: 2.99.7 ConTeXt, URW-Fonts
On 2004-12-27 20:18:50 +0100, Hartmut Henkel wrote: > And the following missing files generate "cannot open font map file" > warnings: > > ec-public-pfl.map > ec-urw-palatino.map > > These two files i couldn't find anywhere, but it seems that it's > harmless when they are missing. Hans, what's the story behind these files? Best regards Martin -- Martin Schröder, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ArtCom GmbH, Lise-Meitner-Str 5, 28359 Bremen, Germany Voice +49 421 20419-44 / Fax +49 421 20419-10 http://www.artcom-gmbh.de
Re: 2.99.7 ConTeXt, URW-Fonts
Thomas Esser wrote: On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 10:08:17AM +0100, Hans Hagen wrote: i'm getting pretty fed up with such changes; as with other changes (patterns to mention one) such drops/changes are not communicated, and the Don't tell me that you are not reading the tex-fonts mailing list!? no, i'll have a look at it (after that i need to buy a 3200 by 2400 screen in order to see my list of mailinglist -) Well, if there is a clear separation: no problem. But, the encoding name *must* be different, then. Two different implementations of the same encoding should not exist. indeed; Hans - Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -
Re: 2.99.7 ConTeXt, URW-Fonts
"HH" == Hans Hagen writes: HH> i'm getting pretty fed up with such changes; as with other HH> changes (patterns to mention one) such drops/changes are not HH> communicated, and the result is broken packages; it gets HH> impossible to keep track of it and i fear that we tex's HH> reputation for stability is kind of broken; the change discussed here consists of adding glyphs to previously unused slots. can such a change ever cause a problem with old packages which don't use those slots? i don't think so. Best, v.
Re: 2.99.7 ConTeXt, URW-Fonts
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 10:08:17AM +0100, Hans Hagen wrote: > i'm getting pretty fed up with such changes; as with other changes > (patterns to mention one) such drops/changes are not communicated, and the Don't tell me that you are not reading the tex-fonts mailing list!? Hm... there is an archive, e.g. http://www.math.utah.edu/pipermail/tex-fonts/. For example, in October 2002, there was a lot of discussion about 8r.enc. > will use the tx enc files; i see no problems in a few dupplicate files; Well, if there is a clear separation: no problem. But, the encoding name *must* be different, then. Two different implementations of the same encoding should not exist. Thomas
Re: 2.99.7 ConTeXt, URW-Fonts
> i'm kind of puzzled beause i thought that 8r was as frozen as can be (i > must admit that i never use that encoding explicitly); There have been several changes to 8r.enc in the past. Walter took over the maintenance (the file is now part of psnfss) at a time where different versions have been floating around. Have a look at CTAN:macros/latex/required/psnfss/changes.txt > doesn't such a change also relate to the presense of glyphs in the pfb's? Yes and I think that this is the main reason for the changes. E.g. many fonts (including the urw35) now have the Euro, so it was added. Thomas
Re: 2.99.7 ConTeXt, URW-Fonts
Thomas Esser wrote: I have no idea if it can have some negative effect if the same encoding name (TeXBase1Encoding) is loaded with different meanings in one (say Postscript) document. in pdf such vectors internally are referenced by object numbers so my guess is that there it goes well (otherwise there would be problems with embedded graphics); i'm not so sure about postscript, since there associations are by names, so it could be a problem indeed Hans - Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -
Re: 2.99.7 ConTeXt, URW-Fonts
Reinhard Kotucha wrote: "Hartmut" == Hartmut Henkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [...] Several files are missing in teTeX; they come with > cont-bas.zip on Hans' PRAGMA page: > texmf/fonts/enc/dvips/txfonts/tx8r.enc There is no difference between tx8r.enc and 8r.enc and this is the reason tx8r.enc has been removed from teTeX. From tx8r.enc: % 8r.enc (0.6, 1-jul-98, by S. Rahtz, P. MacKay, Alan Jeffrey, B. Horn, K. Berry) renamed /TeXBase1Encoding [ /.notdef ... The teTeX .map files use 8r.enc instead. Hans, doesn't it make sense to remove tx8r.enc from your Context distribution? I'd even vote for removing them from CTAN. In this case the map files in CTAN/tex-archive/fonts/[tp]xfonts/dvips/ have to be changed. The [tp]xfonts are under GPL, BTW. i'm getting pretty fed up with such changes; as with other changes (patterns to mention one) such drops/changes are not communicated, and the result is broken packages; it gets impossible to keep track of it and i fear that we tex's reputation for stability is kind of broken; i can imagine users who have their own additions to the tx fonts (for instance i know of people who have old style instances on their machines) and those will use the tx enc files; i see no problems in a few dupplicate files; (btw, similar things happened with the texnansi encoding, changes in hyphen chars, different enc files etc) Hans ps. a complication is that tx/px are kind of unmaintained; i started supporting them when they were posted on ctan, after that, each distribution (tlive) needed a different treatment, so i was kind of glad that there was finally some stability; - Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -
Re: 2.99.7 ConTeXt, URW-Fonts
Hi Thomas, This used to be true, but now it is even worse. tx8r.enc and 8r.enc differ (because 8r.enc was changed and tx8r.enc remained unchanged): After bringing both into a normalized form, I get: > ... i'm kind of puzzled beause i thought that 8r was as frozen as can be (i must admit that i never use that encoding explicitly); doesn't such a change also relate to the presense of glyphs in the pfb's? Hans - Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -
Re: 2.99.7 ConTeXt, URW-Fonts
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 05:10:53AM +0100, Reinhard Kotucha wrote: > There is no difference between tx8r.enc and 8r.enc and this is the > reason tx8r.enc has been removed from teTeX. This used to be true, but now it is even worse. tx8r.enc and 8r.enc differ (because 8r.enc was changed and tx8r.enc remained unchanged): After bringing both into a normalized form, I get: $ diff tx8r.enc 8r.enc 24,31c24,31 < /.notdef < /.notdef < /.notdef < /.notdef < /.notdef < /.notdef < /.notdef < /.notdef --- > /notequal > /infinity > /lessequal > /greaterequal > /partialdiff > /summation > /product > /pi 130,131c130,131 < /.notdef < /.notdef --- > /Euro > /integral 143,145c143,145 < /.notdef < /.notdef < /.notdef --- > /Omega > /radical > /approxequal 159,160c159,160 < /.notdef < /.notdef --- > /Delta > /lozenge I have no idea if it can have some negative effect if the same encoding name (TeXBase1Encoding) is loaded with different meanings in one (say Postscript) document. Thomas
Re: 2.99.7 ConTeXt, URW-Fonts
> "Hartmut" == Hartmut Henkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [...] Several files are missing in teTeX; they come with > cont-bas.zip on Hans' PRAGMA page: > texmf/fonts/enc/dvips/txfonts/tx8r.enc There is no difference between tx8r.enc and 8r.enc and this is the reason tx8r.enc has been removed from teTeX. >From tx8r.enc: % 8r.enc (0.6, 1-jul-98, by S. Rahtz, P. MacKay, Alan Jeffrey, B. Horn, K. Berry) renamed /TeXBase1Encoding [ /.notdef ... The teTeX .map files use 8r.enc instead. Hans, doesn't it make sense to remove tx8r.enc from your Context distribution? I'd even vote for removing them from CTAN. In this case the map files in CTAN/tex-archive/fonts/[tp]xfonts/dvips/ have to be changed. The [tp]xfonts are under GPL, BTW. Regards, Reinhard -- Reinhard Kotucha Phone: +49-511-4592165 Marschnerstr. 25 D-30167 Hannover mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO.
Re: 2.99.7 ConTeXt, URW-Fonts
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 08:18:50PM +0100, Hartmut Henkel wrote: > texmf/fonts/enc/dvips/txfonts/tx8r.enc > texmf/fonts/tfm/urw35vf/*/u*.tfm > texmf/fonts/vf/urw35vf/*/u*.vf Well, there is some long discussion behind this problem. I think that the URW fonts are well enough supported by the Adobe metrics, so I don't like to add these "special" metrics to teTeX. It would be nice to be able to typeset the pdftex manual with the basic set of support files provided by teTeX (which included cont-tmf.zip). Thomas
Re: 2.99.7 ConTeXt, URW-Fonts
Hartmut Henkel wrote: texmf/fonts/enc/dvips/txfonts/tx8r.enc texmf/fonts/tfm/urw35vf/*/u*.tfm texmf/fonts/vf/urw35vf/*/u*.vf These files have swapped place in the tds a few times, so maybe some copying script has not been not updated? Hans - Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -
