Re: new new font selection scheme (Was: URW fonts)
Hi Karsten,
backend names are. There was not much time to work it out, but my
first draft had a user level syntax
\usepackage [rm=palatino, sf=univers, tt=lettergothic] {corelpak}
This looks a bit like the syntacs of the upcoming ConTeXt release:
(Don't ask me for details of the internal syntax until the final release
as a beta this remains changing stuff which almost only Hans Hagen knows
about)
% set default math font to mathtimes:
\setuptypeface [default] [mm] [times] [math] [default] []
% Define the Joke font family
\setuptypeface [joke] [rm] [times-roman] [serif] [default] [texnansi]
\setuptypeface [joke] [ss] [helvetica] [sans] [default] [texnansi]
\setuptypeface [joke] [tt] [courier] [mono] [default] [texnansi]
\setuptypeface [joke] [mm] [informal][math] [default] [texnansi]
% use it
{\joke {\tttf joke :}{[test \ss test \tt test $a=b$]}} \par
with defintions like
\starttypescript [serif-antykwa-torunska] [ec]
\definefontsynonym [AntykwaTorunska-Regular] [zatr8t] [encoding=ec]
\definefontsynonym [AntykwaTorunska-Italic] [zatri8t] [encoding=ec]
\definefontsynonym [AntykwaTorunska-Bold][zatb8t] [encoding=ec]
\stoptypescript
\starttypescript [informal]
\loadmapfile[mpif.map]
\stoptypescript
Tobias
Re: new new font selection scheme (Was: URW fonts)
Tobias Burnus wrote: \starttypescript [serif-antykwa-torunska] [ec] \definefontsynonym [AntykwaTorunska-Regular] [zatr8t] [encoding=ec] \definefontsynonym [AntykwaTorunska-Italic] [zatri8t] [encoding=ec] \definefontsynonym [AntykwaTorunska-Bold][zatb8t] [encoding=ec] ^^ This of course still use procustean 8+3 filenames, which should be the initial changing... Bye. Giuseppe.
Re: URW fonts
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are thousands of dedicated amateurs (in the sense that they do it for love rather than for money) out there working on various bits of LaTeX, developing packages, ... but no overall cooordinator. well, we do have the distinction in LaTeX between core packages, and contribued packages. You cannot add things to the core, only the LaTeX team can do that. So they do exist in some sense. Even the people who look after the TeX archives do it only as a part-time job - look at the messages we sometimes get from them. We should all be very thankful that we have a very good system available at virtually no cost. dont be too complacent about the TeX archives. the system keeps its head above water, but it is fairly stagnant compared to (say) CPAN. Has anyone noticed that Germany seems to lead the way in finding people who do these sorts of things? Ebefhard Mattes (emTeX) and Thomas Esser (teTeX) have made thousands (hundreds of thousands?) very thankful for simplifying the installation of TeX/LaTeX indeed, the contributions of Germans in TeXWorld are staggering. but it does not solve the problem of who will take TeX font management by the scruff of its neck and completely redo it. sebastian
new new font selection scheme (Was: URW fonts)
Karsten == Karsten Tinnefeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I've been thinking about a change when trying to adapt the
corelpak-fonts to our needs, but I came to another conclusion.
What we are in fact interested in is a flexible system on the
user level which hides the font and file detail, and in which it
does not really matter how the backend names are. There was not
much time to work it out, but my first draft had a user level
syntax
\usepackage [rm=palatino, sf=univers, tt=lettergothic] {corelpak}
This would be useful if people only want to use fonts from corelpak,
but it's better if one could combine these fonts with those of other
vendors as well.
I'd prefer the conventional way, i.e. \usepackage{palatino}.
BTW., it is a good idea to use Thierry Bouche's naming scheme, for
instance \usepackage{bpalatino} for a Palatino from Bitstream. Many
fonts are available from several vendors and they are not identical,
even if the /FontName variable is the same.
Regards,
Reinhard
--
Reinhard Kotucha Phone: +49-511-751355
Berggartenstr. 9
D-30419 Hannover mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO.
Re: URW fonts
Hello George, On Tue, 1 May 2001, George White wrote: The system _is_ broken in the sense that using a current TeX with type 1 fonts requires too many font information tables, making it difficult to understand and maintain. Since teTeX runs on X and is commonly used with a Yes! And one of the first concerns which potential new LaTeX users voice to me is that they want to use the fonts they have always used in the past. For a newbie to have to try and understand all those font information tables, just so they can use the fonts they have collected up, and want to continue using, is just absurd. The current font situation is a mess, and really needs a complete overhaul. In a well designed system, the actual names of the font files on disk will appear in exactly one table, and could easily accomodate a variety of naming schemes. Agreed. We must also consider the many packages in the CTAN which might need altering if a new font naming scheme is developed. Helen McCall ---
new new font selection scheme (Was: URW fonts)
I agree with this. The font naming system should now be changed. The 8+3
Yes! Please can we have the font naming system changed?
The font naming scheme,
and the equally important TDS, were the work of various ad hoc working
groups in the early/mid 90s.
I've been thinking about a change when trying to adapt the corelpak-fonts
to our needs, but I came to another conclusion. What we are in fact
interested in is a flexible system on the user level which hides the
font and file detail, and in which it does not really matter how the
backend names are. There was not much time to work it out, but my
first draft had a user level syntax
\usepackage [rm=palatino, sf=univers, tt=lettergothic] {corelpak}
where the font configuration internals were driven by a back end driver
which specified the internal name of the font and its default type so
that (with the exception of decorative fonts) every font knew it would
be the default rm/sf/tt font.
There is of course the question of document integrity, which asks
whether it is better to replace foundry A palatino (say) by foundry B
palatino or not to typeset the document, which needs to be answered
when talking about which degree of font specification precision is
necessary. Also, we are only just talking about text (non-math) fonts,
the very usual encodings etc. aren't we.
(this very first draft is of 1999/06/21, and whoever is interested may
use it as a design study ...)
Karsten
--
Karsten Tinnefeld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Informatik 2, Universität DortmundT +49 231 755-4737
44221 Dortmund, DeutschlandM +49 172 2877586 F +49 231 755-2047
Re: URW fonts
* George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] [01 05 01 13:41]:
On Tue, 1 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
There are still a lot of people around, particularly in the so-called
Third World, who are happily running TeX on ancient machines.
Yes, but are any of them using the current version of teTeX with
pdftex and ghostscript?
Giuseppe Ghibo' [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
How about a revision of the 8+3 KB naming scheme to support more
characters for more prosaic font names? WDYT?
If a system isn't broken, don't fix it.
The system _is_ broken in the sense that using a current TeX with type 1
fonts requires too many font information tables, making it difficult to
understand and maintain. Since teTeX runs on X and is commonly used with a
PS interpreter, you also have to reconcile the X font names and provide
the font to file mapping for the PS interpreter. When you encounter a
problem it is often difficult to figure out which file needs to be
changed. There are many situations where it would be useful to be able to
switch between families (e.g., the original Adobe base 13 fonts as used by
Display PS and Acrobat Reader 3 vs the modified base 13 fonts as used by
Acrobat Reader 4 or the Adobe laserwriter 35 vs the URW clones of
these fonts), or even to know with certainty which of these are actually
being used (since many systems try to be helpful and automatically
substitute fonts without telling us).
The current font situation is a mess, and really needs a complete
overhaul. In a well designed system, the actual names of the
font files on disk will appear in exactly one table, and could
easily accomodate a variety of naming schemes.
Regarding Linux, not only the TeX-Fonts are mess. The whole font-system
is a mess and it takes quite a long time to understand what is going on.
If you are using a Windows-OS and (maybe also Mac?) you have the advantage of
truetype fonts in one directory, which are used for the display and printing.
However AFAIK you can not use true-type for TEX, and if you want to
use several 100 fonts - Windows is getting slow or crashes.
Under Linux you have (Type1):
Fonts for X in /usr/lib/X11/fonts - AFAIK only the .pfb-files
Fonts for ghosscript in /usr/lib/ghostscript/fonts/ afm + pfb
Fonts for TeX in /usr/share/texmf/fonts/type1/ pfb
Fonts for a2ps in /usr/share/a2ps/afm/
Metrik-Files in /usr/share/texmf/fonts/afm
Files in /usr/share/enscript/afm/
and maybe some more.
You have several fontmaps, fonts.dir, fontscale files
several Pathdefinions and so on. You need a fontmap for
gs, for dvips, for pdftex, for X
Most of these programms use the PS-Fontname
like LucidaNewMath-Demibold and do not care about
the filenames (lbmd.pfb or lbmd.afm)
Latex is working with Karl-Berry-Fontnames, very limited due
to compatibility with 8+3 Dos-Systems, however distributed PS-Fonts
use also 8+3, and I really do not think:
1064a___.pfb - a bitstream fontname or
bnhrdmbi.pfb - a CorelDraw fontname (which is a bitstream font).
are a better solution.
Under Tex you may use your own names if you like -
however fontinst latinfamily will not work; you have
to translate the afm-files by hand, and have to write
your own font definition File.
The problem in my opinion is, that there is no simple way,
to connect all these different resources.
If you want to use PS-Fonts with TeX, the only thing you
really need are translated afm-files.
X, dvips, gs, gv, xdvi, gimp, enscript, a2ps
and so on may use the same Font Files which can be stored
in the same directory, using the same map-files (fonts.dir etc)
In my opinion, there should be a way to connect the tfm-Files for
a font with PS-Names of the same font:
This is the entry for X in fonts.dir
bgor8a.pfb -bitstream-goudy old style-medium-r-normal--0-0-0-0-p-0-iso8859-1
This is for dvips in psfont.map
bgor8r GoudyOldStyleBT-Roman TeXBase1Encoding ReEncodeFont 8r.enc bgor8a.pfb
This is for ghostscript in the Fontmap
/GoudyOldStyleBT-Roman (bgor8a.pfb) ;
Lets say: all PS-Fonts are installed in
/usr/share/fonts/type1 for pfb files and
/usr/share/fonts/afm for afm files
dvips, xdvi, gs, pdftex, gv ... are searching for fonts in this
directory.
If you want to use NimbusSanL-Regular,
the gs-Fontmap tells you the pfb-Filename: n019003l.pfb
The complete font is stored in:
/usr/share/fonts/type1/n019003l.pfb
/usr/share/fonts/afm/n019003l.afm
for TeX you need the n019003l.afm File, which contains:
- the PS Fonname NimbusSanL-Regular and
- the encoding.
Next: if you could specify in a tex-document:
\newfont{\nslrx}{NimbusSanL-Regular scaled at 10pt}
there may be a way, that a subroutine is started, which does the following:
1. reading the gs-Fontmap, looking for NimbusSanL-Regular
if found - the appropiate afm-file should be found in
/usr/share/fonts/afm
2. starting afm2tfm to produce a tfm-File
3. store the tfm somewhere with the information, that n019003l.tfm =
new new font selection scheme (Was: URW fonts)
I agree with this. The font naming system should now be changed. The 8+3
Yes! Please can we have the font naming system changed?
The font naming scheme,
and the equally important TDS, were the work of various ad hoc working
groups in the early/mid 90s.
I've been thinking about a change when trying to adapt the corelpak-fonts
to our needs, but I came to another conclusion. What we are in fact
interested in is a flexible system on the user level which hides the
font and file detail, and in which it does not really matter how the
backend names are. There was not much time to work it out, but my
first draft had a user level syntax
\usepackage [rm=palatino, sf=univers, tt=lettergothic] {corelpak}
where the font configuration internals were driven by a back end driver
which specified the internal name of the font and its default type so
that (with the exception of decorative fonts) every font knew it would
be the default rm/sf/tt font.
There is of course the question of document integrity, which asks
whether it is better to replace foundry A palatino (say) by foundry B
palatino or not to typeset the document, which needs to be answered
when talking about which degree of font specification precision is
necessary. Also, we are only just talking about text (non-math) fonts,
the very usual encodings etc. aren't we.
(this very first draft is of 1999/06/21, and whoever is interested may
use it as a design study ...)
--
Karsten Tinnefeld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Informatik 2, Universität DortmundT +49 231 755-4737
44221 Dortmund, DeutschlandM +49 172 2877586 F +49 231 755-2047
Re: URW fonts
Sebastian Rahtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Tue, 1 May 2001 14:54:26 +0100 Helen McCall writes: I agree with this. The font naming system should now be changed. The 8+3 .. Yes! Please can we have the font naming system changed? Changed by who? this is a community, remember. The font naming scheme, and the equally important TDS, were the work of various ad hoc working groups in the early/mid 90s. The people who did the work then (Karl Berry, for instance, or me) are no longer available. Nothing will change without a very dedicated group of people taking up the challenge. There *is* no group at the head of TeX world whom you can ask to change things.. This is one of the joys (and frustrations) of free software. There are thousands of dedicated amateurs (in the sense that they do it for love rather than for money) out there working on various bits of LaTeX, developing packages, ... but no overall cooordinator. Even the people who look after the TeX archives do it only as a part-time job - look at the messages we sometimes get from them. We should all be very thankful that we have a very good system available at virtually no cost. Has anyone noticed that Germany seems to lead the way in finding people who do these sorts of things? Ebefhard Mattes (emTeX) and Thomas Esser (teTeX) have made thousands (hundreds of thousands?) very thankful for simplifying the installation of TeX/LaTeX sebastian Ken Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: URW fonts
Giuseppe Ghibo' [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote Hans Fredrik Nordhaug wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Thomas Esser wrote: Thx for info on Berry names [cut] 2) Wouldn't it be better to use the ghostscript name to avoid any confusion (and to make map files more portable - useful outside teTeX)? What does this mean more portable? We are speaking about file names and the Berry names are the most portable names (8.3 for these files and all lowercase; strict 7bit ASCII). So to speak, but why in 2001 A.D. we still have to do with old MSDOS 8+3 things? Currently every new system supports more than 8+3 characters in filename, from Windows, to Unix, to Amiga, Mac, etc.; also for ISO, which has Joliet, RockRidge, HSFS, etc. extension to have long file names. And all these systems supports at least 31 characters long file names, as well as for ISO CD images, which has Joliet, RockRidge, HSFS, etc. extension to have long file names. There are still a lot of people around, particularly in the so-called Third World, who are happily running TeX on ancient machines. Earlier this year I installed emTeX on a 386sx machine with a 40MB hard disk for my youngest daughter. She wanted to do her university work on a machine which couldn't be used for playing games by her children. She uses it solely for producing documents - and in even a couple of months has learned enough about LaTeX not to want to even try learning something which requires a machine with gigabytes of hard disk space. The following bit isn't directly relevant to font naming, but indicates that old systems still have something going for them. Even though I usually use teTeX under Linux on my home machine, I recently discovered one case where the emTeX drivers are better than dvips. I was using xymtex to produce a diagram of part of an RNA molecule. This uses nested picture environments to put the atoms in particuler places and link them, and hence makes a lot of demands on memory. Under teTeX dvips produced an error message Out of stack space The emTeX drivers let me both view and print the diagram. And on Stephanie's machine, with 8MB ram, it was slow but still worked. How about a revision of the 8+3 KB naming scheme to support more characters for more prosaic font names? WDYT? If a system isn't broken, don't fix it? Bye. Giuseppe. Ken Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: URW fonts
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So to speak, but why in 2001 A.D. we still have to do with old MSDOS 8+3 things? Currently every new system supports more than 8+3 characters in filename, from Windows, to Unix, to Amiga, Mac, etc.; also for ISO, which has Joliet, RockRidge, HSFS, etc. extension to have long file names. And all these systems supports at least 31 characters long file names, as well as for ISO CD images, which has Joliet, RockRidge, HSFS, etc. extension to have long file names. There are still a lot of people around, particularly in the so-called Third World, who are happily running TeX on ancient machines. Earlier this year I installed emTeX on a 386sx machine with a 40MB hard disk for my youngest daughter. She wanted to do her university work on a machine which couldn't be used for playing games by her children. She uses it solely for producing documents - and in even a couple of months has learned enough about LaTeX not to want to even try learning something which requires a machine with gigabytes of hard disk space. ancient machine doesn't mean ancient OS. You can install Linux on 386 which has support for long names. On the other hand if she uses old DOSes she can continue to use old (em)TeX version (on the other hand latest emTeX is from 1998) with short naming scheme. The following bit isn't directly relevant to font naming, but indicates that old systems still have something going for them. Even though I usually use teTeX under Linux on my home machine, I recently discovered one case where the emTeX drivers are better than dvips. I was using xymtex to produce a diagram of part of an RNA molecule. This uses nested picture environments to put the atoms in particuler places and link them, and hence makes a lot of demands on memory. Under teTeX dvips produced an error message Out of stack space The emTeX drivers let me both view and print the diagram. well, probably dvips can be recompiled extending default stack size... And on Stephanie's machine, with 8MB ram, it was slow but still worked. Anyway my objection was with ancient 8+3 names, not for old machines. When I was using the Amiga as main machine, I was running TeX (PasTeX, DVIPrint, ShowDVI, SpecialHost, etc) even with 1-4MB of RAM (and no virtual memory/swap), but the Amiga had long file name support since the 1986... On that machine MetaFont taken 8-9 minutes (with the inner loop rewritten in 680X0 assembly). Now on a K7/1Ghz with Linux I measured around 0.3 seconds. How about a revision of the 8+3 KB naming scheme to support more characters for more prosaic font names? WDYT? If a system isn't broken, don't fix it? well, programs evolves. Otherwise we wouldn't even had all the PostScript and PDF extension of the newer TeX things. Bye. Giuseppe.
Re: URW fonts
On Tue, 1 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] There are still a lot of people around, particularly in the so-called Third World, who are happily running TeX on ancient machines. Yes, but are any of them using the current version of teTeX with pdftex and ghostscript? Giuseppe Ghibo' [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote How about a revision of the 8+3 KB naming scheme to support more characters for more prosaic font names? WDYT? If a system isn't broken, don't fix it. The system _is_ broken in the sense that using a current TeX with type 1 fonts requires too many font information tables, making it difficult to understand and maintain. Since teTeX runs on X and is commonly used with a PS interpreter, you also have to reconcile the X font names and provide the font to file mapping for the PS interpreter. When you encounter a problem it is often difficult to figure out which file needs to be changed. There are many situations where it would be useful to be able to switch between families (e.g., the original Adobe base 13 fonts as used by Display PS and Acrobat Reader 3 vs the modified base 13 fonts as used by Acrobat Reader 4 or the Adobe laserwriter 35 vs the URW clones of these fonts), or even to know with certainty which of these are actually being used (since many systems try to be helpful and automatically substitute fonts without telling us). The current font situation is a mess, and really needs a complete overhaul. In a well designed system, the actual names of the font files on disk will appear in exactly one table, and could easily accomodate a variety of naming schemes. -- George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Halifax, Nova Scotia
Re: URW fonts
Helen McCall writes: I agree with this. The font naming system should now be changed. The 8+3 .. Yes! Please can we have the font naming system changed? Changed by who? this is a community, remember. The font naming scheme, and the equally important TDS, were the work of various ad hoc working groups in the early/mid 90s. The people who did the work then (Karl Berry, for instance, or me) are no longer available. Nothing will change without a very dedicated group of people taking up the challenge. There *is* no group at the head of TeX world whom you can ask to change things.. sebastian
URW fonts
Hi, the URW fonts coming with ghostscript are named n021004l.pfb (and so on). In teteX 1.0.2 the same URW font is named utmb8a.pfb. I have two questions: 1) The name 'utmb8a.pfb' seems to be teTeX specific - am I right? Assuming that 1) is correct: 2) Wouldn't it be better to use the ghostscript name to avoid any confusion (and to make map files more portable - useful outside teTeX)? Hans -- Hans Fredrik Nordhaug, | web:www.mi.uib.no/~hansfn Ph.D. student at | phone:(+47) 55 58 48 79 Department of Mathematics, | fax: (+47) 55 58 96 72 University of Bergen| e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 5008 Bergen, Norway | icq: 74265696 --
Re: URW fonts
the URW fonts coming with ghostscript are named n021004l.pfb (and so on). In teteX 1.0.2 the same URW font is named utmb8a.pfb. Right, these files are named according to the Berry scheme (- texdoc fontname). This scheme commonly used in the TeX world and make is easier to use some tools (e.g. fontinst). 1) The name 'utmb8a.pfb' seems to be teTeX specific - am I right? Assuming that 1) is correct: Not strictly teTeX. But somehow TeX related. 2) Wouldn't it be better to use the ghostscript name to avoid any confusion (and to make map files more portable - useful outside teTeX)? What does this mean more portable? We are speaking about file names and the Berry names are the most portable names (8.3 for these files and all lowercase; strict 7bit ASCII). These files, spread out into several directories in teTeX are not directly usable for other programs (even if they would have their original name). Hey, we are speaking about 1.5 MB of disk space. I do not care to have them three times on my disk (X11, TeX, ghostscript). Thomas
Re: URW fonts
More portable means that we try to use the same name... I just got confused since the txfonts package in txr2.map used the ghostscript name. From now on I'm a Berry name guy :-) Well, the txfonts package has two map files with font downloading of LW35 fonts: - Adobe Font names / Adobe file names - URW Font names / URW file names teTeX is prepared for: - Adobe Font names / Berry file names - URW Font names / Berry file names (default) - URW Font names / URW file names Maybe, I should add Adobe Font names / Adobe file names, but nobody has asked for it... It would be good if someone made a URW Font names / Berry file names map for the txfonts package and submitted that to the authors (and the same for px). Its just a matter of replacing a few strings in txr2.map. That would help people to use px/tx fonts with teTeX... Any volunteer? Thomas
Re: URW fonts
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Thomas Esser wrote: Thx for info on Berry names [cut] 2) Wouldn't it be better to use the ghostscript name to avoid any confusion (and to make map files more portable - useful outside teTeX)? What does this mean more portable? We are speaking about file names and the Berry names are the most portable names (8.3 for these files and all lowercase; strict 7bit ASCII). More portable means that we try to use the same name... I just got confused since the txfonts package in txr2.map used the ghostscript name. From now on I'm a Berry name guy :-) These files, spread out into several directories in teTeX are not directly usable for other programs (even if they would have their original name). Hey, we are speaking about 1.5 MB of disk space. I do not care to have them three times on my disk (X11, TeX, ghostscript). That was not an issue for me either. Hans
Re: URW fonts
Thomas Esser wrote: More portable means that we try to use the same name... I just got confused since the txfonts package in txr2.map used the ghostscript name. From now on I'm a Berry name guy :-) Well, the txfonts package has two map files with font downloading of LW35 fonts: - Adobe Font names / Adobe file names - URW Font names / URW file names teTeX is prepared for: - Adobe Font names / Berry file names - URW Font names / Berry file names (default) - URW Font names / URW file names Maybe, I should add Adobe Font names / Adobe file names, but nobody has asked for it... It would be good if someone made a URW Font names / Berry file names map for the txfonts package and submitted that to the authors (and the same for px). Its just a matter of replacing a few strings in txr2.map. That would help people to use px/tx fonts with teTeX... Any volunteer? I already made that in my contrib (as well as tx/px font support in udpmap), using Karsten Tinnefeld one: see txr4.map, pxr4.map in the dir dvips/config in the archive: CTAN:/pub/tex/systems/unix/teTeX/1.0/contrib/ghibo/teTeX-texmf-gg-1.0.3.tar.bz2 Bye. Giuseppe.
Re: URW fonts
Hans Fredrik Nordhaug wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Thomas Esser wrote: Thx for info on Berry names [cut] 2) Wouldn't it be better to use the ghostscript name to avoid any confusion (and to make map files more portable - useful outside teTeX)? What does this mean more portable? We are speaking about file names and the Berry names are the most portable names (8.3 for these files and all lowercase; strict 7bit ASCII). So to speak, but why in 2001 A.D. we still have to do with old MSDOS 8+3 things? Currently every new system supports more than 8+3 characters in filename, from Windows, to Unix, to Amiga, Mac, etc.; also for ISO, which has Joliet, RockRidge, HSFS, etc. extension to have long file names. And all these systems supports at least 31 characters long file names, as well as for ISO CD images, which has Joliet, RockRidge, HSFS, etc. extension to have long file names. How about a revision of the 8+3 KB naming scheme to support more characters for more prosaic font names? WDYT? Bye. Giuseppe.
Re: tetex URW fonts
In my tetex-1.0.6 (RH61) I can not found all necessary files for type1 URW fonts (avantgar, bookman,courier,helvetic,ncntrsbk, palatino,times ). Only pfb afm are available. I installed tetex via RPM package. Is this a error of RPM package or tetex distribution. Well, this is no error at all. I consider these URW fonts to be a free drop-in replacement of the LW35 Adobe fonts. Hence, you can just use the psnfss files + metrics to use these fonts, e.g. pslatex, times, etc. ... Look at the texmf/dvips/config directory. The map files (e.g. pdftex.map) use the URW fonts when the LW35 fonts are needed. I admit that it is confusing to use the metrics of ptmr* to use utmr8a.pfb, but this "trick" eliminates the need of a separate set of metrics + macros. Anyway, I have to install these fonts by using fontinst :-) I don't think that this is necessary. Thomas
tetex URW fonts
Hi, In my tetex-1.0.6 (RH61) I can not found all necessary files for type1 URW fonts (avantgar, bookman,courier,helvetic,ncntrsbk, palatino,times ). Only pfb afm are available. I installed tetex via RPM package. Is this a error of RPM package or tetex distribution. Anyway, I have to install these fonts by using fontinst :-) Cheers, -- Nguyên-Ðai Quý LTAS-Mécanique de la Rupture, ULG Rue des Chevreuils, 1, Bât B52, Local 522 B-4000, Liège, BELGIQUE Tél:+32-4-366.9098 Fax:+32-4-366.9311 http://w3.to/quy
