Re: \textservicemark vs. \texttrademark

[G. Milde]

On 22.08.08, Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:

>> The problem is that the font you're using does not provide the appropriate
>> glyph (for SM). Thus textcomp bails out.

>   That occurred to me, but I neglected to ask. I'm surprised that the
> Palatino fonts don't contain that glyph since this family is one of those
> provided by LaTeX.

There is no font "provided by LaTeX".

There is one font that "comes with TeX" -- Computer Modern.

There are many fonts that are "made accessible for LaTeX", e.g. the standard
Postscript fonts.

The free versions of these standard font families are mostly "scaled
down" (missing expert cuts like real small caps as well as not-so-common
glyphs and symbols).

Additional symbols for LaTeX are mostly designed to match Computer Modern.

Günter

Re: \textservicemark vs. \texttrademark

[Rich Shepard]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:


The problem is that the font you're using does not provide the appropriate
glyph (for SM). Thus textcomp bails out.


Jürgen,

  That occurred to me, but I neglected to ask. I'm surprised that the
Palatino fonts don't contain that glyph since this family is one of those
provided by LaTeX.


Consult the LaTeX Companion section about textcomp for further details.


  Wlll do.

Thanks,

Rich

--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D.   |  IntegrityCredibility
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.|Innovation
 Voice: 503-667-4517  Fax: 503-667-8863

Re: \textservicemark vs. \texttrademark

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Rich Shepard wrote:
> No, the workaround still works. I would, however, like to learn why symbol
> cannot be produced by the package in which it's defined.

The problem is that the font you're using does not provide the appropriate 
glyph (for SM). Thus textcomp bails out.

Consult the LaTeX Companion section about textcomp for further details.

Jürgen

Re: \textservicemark vs. \texttrademark

[Rich Shepard]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, G. Milde wrote:


Just a silly guess: did you check the versions of the package and the
documentation?


  Yes. I posted that in my follow-up message.

Rich

--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D.   |  IntegrityCredibility
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.|Innovation
 Voice: 503-667-4517  Fax: 503-667-8863

Re: \textservicemark vs. \texttrademark

[G. Milde]

On 21.08.08, Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Paul A. Rubin wrote:

>   No, the workaround still works. I would, however, like to learn why symbol
> cannot be produced by the package in which it's defined. There should be a
> reason known by some LaTeX guru, and I'd like to expand my knowledge by
> having that reason explained to me.

Just a silly guess: did you check the versions of the package and the
documentation?

Re: \textservicemark vs. \texttrademark

[Rich Shepard]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Manveru wrote:


I had similar problems with \textregistered - plenty issues with that... but
finally it starts working. It works when put in ERT.


  There is no other way to enter these symbols. I've no problems with
registered or trademark, only with servicemark.

Rich

--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D.   |  IntegrityCredibility
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.|Innovation
 Voice: 503-667-4517  Fax: 503-667-8863

Re: \textservicemark vs. \texttrademark

[Rich Shepard]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Paul A. Rubin wrote:


I can't translate the [EMAIL PROTECTED]@symbol2 thing, but we had a discussion
about the vagaries of \textservicemark back in February
(http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-users@lists.lyx.org/msg62336.html). Does
this imply that the workaround you found acceptable then
(\textsuperscript{SM}) is no longer sufficient?


Paul,

  No, the workaround still works. I would, however, like to learn why symbol
cannot be produced by the package in which it's defined. There should be a
reason known by some LaTeX guru, and I'd like to expand my knowledge by
having that reason explained to me.

Rich

--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D.   |  IntegrityCredibility
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.|Innovation
 Voice: 503-667-4517  Fax: 503-667-8863

Re: \textservicemark vs. \texttrademark

[Manveru]

I had similar problems with \textregistered - plenty issues with that... but
finally it starts working. It works when put in ERT.

2008/8/21 Paul A. Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Rich Shepard wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Rich Shepard wrote:
>>
>>   I cannot use \textservicemark without compile errors when using
>>> pdflatex.
>>> However, I can use \texttrademark without a burp. According to my symbols
>>> list, the latter has a LaTeX2e kludge while the former does not. The
>>> former
>>> requires textcomp. Is that a package?
>>>
>>
>>  More:
>>
>>  I added \usepackage{textcomp} to the preamble and saw the error message
>> that \textservicemark is not provided by the package textcomp. However, in
>> textcomp.sty (2004/02/22 v1.99f) there is the line,
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]@symbol2\textservicemark}
>>
>>
>>  I'd appreciate someone teaching me why I'm seeing the error and how to
>> correct it.
>>
>>
> I can't translate the [EMAIL PROTECTED]@symbol2 thing, but we had a discussion
> about the vagaries of \textservicemark back in February (
> http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-users@lists.lyx.org/msg62336.html). Does
> this imply that the workaround you found acceptable then
> (\textsuperscript{SM}) is no longer sufficient?
>
> /Paul
>
>


-- 
Manveru
jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gg: 1624001
http://www.manveru.pl

Re: \textservicemark vs. \texttrademark

[Paul A. Rubin]

Rich Shepard wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Rich Shepard wrote:

 I cannot use \textservicemark without compile errors when using 
pdflatex.

However, I can use \texttrademark without a burp. According to my symbols
list, the latter has a LaTeX2e kludge while the former does not. The 
former

requires textcomp. Is that a package?


  More:

  I added \usepackage{textcomp} to the preamble and saw the error message
that \textservicemark is not provided by the package textcomp. However, in
textcomp.sty (2004/02/22 v1.99f) there is the line,

[EMAIL PROTECTED]@symbol2\textservicemark} 



  I'd appreciate someone teaching me why I'm seeing the error and how to
correct it.



I can't translate the [EMAIL PROTECTED]@symbol2 thing, but we had a discussion 
about the vagaries of \textservicemark back in February 
(http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-users@lists.lyx.org/msg62336.html). 
Does this imply that the workaround you found acceptable then 
(\textsuperscript{SM}) is no longer sufficient?


/Paul

Re: \textservicemark vs. \texttrademark

[Rich Shepard]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Rich Shepard wrote:


 I cannot use \textservicemark without compile errors when using pdflatex.
However, I can use \texttrademark without a burp. According to my symbols
list, the latter has a LaTeX2e kludge while the former does not. The former
requires textcomp. Is that a package?


  More:

  I added \usepackage{textcomp} to the preamble and saw the error message
that \textservicemark is not provided by the package textcomp. However, in
textcomp.sty (2004/02/22 v1.99f) there is the line,

[EMAIL PROTECTED]@symbol2\textservicemark}

  I'd appreciate someone teaching me why I'm seeing the error and how to
correct it.

Rich

--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D.   |  IntegrityCredibility
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.|Innovation
 Voice: 503-667-4517  Fax: 503-667-8863

\textservicemark vs. \texttrademark

[Rich Shepard]

  I cannot use \textservicemark without compile errors when using pdflatex.
However, I can use \texttrademark without a burp. According to my symbols
list, the latter has a LaTeX2e kludge while the former does not. The former
requires textcomp. Is that a package?

  There is a legal difference between a trademark and a servicemark so I do
want to figure out how to use the latter without throwing a compile-time
error.

Rich

--
Richard B. Shepard, Ph.D.   |  IntegrityCredibility
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc.|Innovation
 Voice: 503-667-4517  Fax: 503-667-8863