Re: europs.sty in 2.0(.1)
On Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 11:04:38AM +0100, Giuseppe Ghibò wrote: > like isn't official euro symbol the \texteuro of textcomp.sty. IMHO the one > provided in font "eurosym" (feymr10) is enough to provide the euro symbol. teTeX-2.0 (and later) has eurosym.sty and the metrics and type1 files for the fonts (texmf/fonts/type1/public). > In this case maybe .tfm and europs.sty could be provided, but then it ... > The europs.sty license is this: %% File eurofont.sty %% copyright Rowland McDonnell 1998 %% email [EMAIL PROTECTED] %%\This file is part of the eurofont distribution. You can distribute it %% freely provided that you include the rest of the eurofont distribution %% with this file and make no more than a nominal charge to cover the %% costs of distributing it. So, the eurofont package is not free software. Thomas
Re: europs.sty in 2.0(.1)
Berthold K.P. Horn wrote: Same would apply to MathTime etc. Keep in mind that the *metric* files are of course "free". Even for fonts from major foundries like Adobe. well, but not macros. Several mathtime macros were removed from tetex 2.0 because of nonfree license, e.g. in ChangeLog of tetex-texmf-2.0 you see: - Thu Jan 21:00:08 CET 2003 * plain tex support for mathtime removed (license problem) Bye. Giuseppe.
Re: europs.sty in 2.0(.1)
[note from the list owner: html part was stripped; it is not welcome] At 09:16 2/22/2003 +, Robin Fairbairns wrote: > > > "Thomas" == Thomas Esser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > As other have guessed: I don't like that europs approach as the > > > type1 files cannot be distributed with teTeX. > > > > On the other hand there is support for Y&Y's Lucida fonts which are > > not free as well. > >and the steady stream of complaints to y&y (who are merely selling >agents: bigelow and holmes designed the fonts), and on comp.text.tex, >is evidence of the trouble caused by having metrics but no fonts. Bigelow and Holmes indeed designed the fonts. In the case of the math fonts for TeX there was considerable iterative interaction with Y&Y to get them to actually be useable with TeX, since TeX makes weird and wonderful demands on fonts (and lies about metrics in the TFM, just for example). In additions, Y&Y generated the metrics and paid for development of the style files (in addition to writing support code for plain TeX and LaTeX 2.09 before there was PSNFSS). They also bear the brunt of questions relating to systems that have trouble supporting scalable outline fonts well. Math fonts for use with TeX are a nightmare when compared to the thousands of plain text fonts that Adobe et al sell license for. There are never any questions about those. A vendor has to be brave(or insane) to enter the very difficult and very limited world of math fonts for use with TeX. Also, I suspect people who are unwilling to pay license fees to Y&Y for fonts would similarly not want to pay license fees to Bigelow and Holmes or Michael Spivak (all nice people who would rather not want to deal with sales, marketing, TeX code development and support). >the situation is of course even worse for lucida, because several >subsets of the fonts exist (many of them "free", in the sense that >they are bundled for use with other packages) that look sub-standard >if used in tex. No good deed goes unpunished. The "free" text fonts that are similar are just that: similar, not equal. If you want the real thing and support you need to get the real thing. And there are no "free" equivalents of the math font part of the complete. It's hard to fault a well designed working set of fonts for the faults of free fonts that appear superficially related. (For a real kick in the pants, look at the free "math fonts" that come with Mathematica). > > I'm not sure whether it is the most user friendly way to provide the > > support files along with teTeX, it is probably quite convenient for > > people who have the Lucida fonts already installed. > >"for the minuscule proportion of people who have the lucida fonts..." The support files for LucidaBright and MathTime are but a microscopic drop in the bucket of the bloated distribution. There is plenty of stuff in there that takes up several megabytes and I don't use and I don't know anyone else that uses. > > Installing the 'real' fonts shouldn't be difficult, but it might be a > > bit inconvenient. You have to find out what you need, find out where > > it is on the disk, where the files should go, create the appropriate > > directories and, because the Y&Y stuff is based on WinDOS, you have to > > keep in mind that file names are case sensitive under UNIX. > >installing the adobe euro fonts (to get back to the point at issue) is >the *only* tricky issue in the matter, for most tex users: widnoze >users will merely ask for the package to be installed, and it will >happen. getting and installing the font is (imo) a big deal: it's a >bundle of files with stupid names, and there are no package managers >that will just stick them in place. The advantages of systems that makes font installation and use easy should be blatantly apparent... >y&y doesn't (berthold doesn't believe in the tds anyway, apparently >feigning not to understand why people don't just use the "vastly >superior" widnoze filing system and y&y tex's flat directory model). Not sure where this comes from. When you get a Y&Y TeX System you have a "deep" directory tree with all the usual stuff, except for the legacy METAFONT and PK font related branches snipped off. When it comes to fonts, you should only need the actual font files (PFB) and there is no point in building a hierarchy for that. >personally, i would rather not have any of these commercial fonts in >the base distributions (including tetex). Well, you only have the "free" metric files and style files... >i believe they merely add >to the feeling that so many people have, that "fonts in tex are deeply >obscure" (far worse than merely difficult). Sorry, but they are. Certainly when compared to systems that support fonts well such as Textures on the Mac and Y&Y TeX in Windows. >we really need a tetex package manager; then the bundles for these >fonts can refuse to install if the .pf[ab] isn't available. but >that's another argument... -- Berthold K.
Re: europs.sty in 2.0(.1)
At 08:57 2/22/2003 +0100, Reinhard Kotucha wrote: > "Thomas" == Thomas Esser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As other have guessed: I don't like that europs approach as the > type1 files cannot be distributed with teTeX. On the other hand there is support for Y&Y's Lucida fonts which are not free as well. I'm not sure whether it is the most user friendly way to provide the support files along with teTeX, it is probably quite convenient for people who have the Lucida fonts already installed. Installing the 'real' fonts shouldn't be difficult, but it might be a bit inconvenient. You have to find out what you need, find out where it is on the disk, where the files should go, create the appropriate directories and, because the Y&Y stuff is based on WinDOS, you have to keep in mind that file names are case sensitive under UNIX. Actually, it is relatively easy, sine teTeX includes everything but the font files themselves --- and instructions are provided with the "Unix" version of the fonts. (see attached for generic instructions for TeTeX). By the way, there should be no name case issue with LucidaBright --- that problem related to MathTime, and was *not* caused by the font originators. Spivak used upper case names for the actual font file names, and Y&Y kept that convention. Later, when distribution of standard LaTeX was considered, the CD-ROM file system suitable for Unix did not support case for file names, so everything had to be the same case (so don't blame everything on Windows :-). At that time several files in the standard distribution were renamed and Y&Y was asked to consider renaming the metric files for MathTime, which they did. Unfortunately in the TeX world old files resurface periodically and sometimes multiply faster than new ones. So now there is a mix of files lying around some using lower case and some upper case for the file names mtmi, mtsy, mtex etc. (Note that the PS FontNames themselves *are* always upper case, and that the reference names in LaTeX are also--- we are only talking here about the actual file names, such as TFMs and PFBs). You may wonder why Spivak chose upper case file names in the first case. You can blame this one on the Macintosh (again, not Windows :-) which used a font file name abbreviation scheme that would have mapped many long CM font names into the same abbreviation --- Barry Smith solved this problems by making CM font file names all upper case. Spivak saw this and assumed that font file names needed to be upper case. >From the viewpoint of a user things could be much more convenient: Imagine a tar.gz file containing all the support files along with the *real* fonts that can be extracted in any texmf* directory. And this tar.gz file should, of course, be distributed by Y&Y. Well, that is an interesting idea. Of course it brings with it issues of just how many font users would benefit from this. Since Unix has no system level support for scalable fonts (or, on systems that do, such as Solaris, or NeXT, or Mac OS X, it is unique to that system), it is impossible to provide anything generic. Also, while there is always much complaining, noone who has the fonts ever offered to just make up such as tar file and email it to Y&Y for their consideration. Finally, keep in mind that sales of license for fonts for use with TeX are virtually non-existent, and that the "maintainence" (which, of course, has nothing to do with fonts, which are fixed, and has everything to do with developments in the OS, ATM, TeX system worlds) outweighs income, at least in the Macintosh and Unix worlds. I suppose that you want to leave the Lucida support files in teTeX because there are some people using them. But if you ever decide to remove them in the future because the fonts are not free, I strictly recommend to put them to CTAN. Same would apply to MathTime etc. Keep in mind that the *metric* files are of course "free". Even for fonts from major foundries like Adobe. Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO. Of course, you are not biased in any way :-) Statistically, most of the "complaints" about font files come from people who would never consider paying a license for a font :-) -- Berthold K.P. Horn mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/bkph (BK) === Installing PS Type 1 fonts for use with teTeX(file tetexfnt.txt) === Copyright (C) 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 Y&Y, Inc. All Rights Reserved In teTeX 1.0 (and later), font support (.sty, .fd, .tfm files etc.) is already all set up for you. You just need to put the actual font files (in .pfa or .pfb format) into localtexmf/fonts/type1 (or texmf/fonts
Re: europs.sty in 2.0(.1)
Reinhard Kotucha wrote: "Thomas" == Thomas Esser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As other have guessed: I don't like that europs approach as the > type1 files cannot be distributed with teTeX. On the other hand there is support for Y&Y's Lucida fonts which are not free as well. I'm not sure whether it is the most user friendly way to provide the support files along with teTeX, it is probably quite convenient for people who have the Lucida fonts already installed. Installing the 'real' fonts shouldn't be difficult, but it might be a bit inconvenient. You have to find out what you need, find out where it is on the disk, where the files should go, create the appropriate directories and, because the Y&Y stuff is based on WinDOS, you have to keep in mind that file names are case sensitive under UNIX. From the viewpoint of a user things could be much more convenient: Imagine a tar.gz file containing all the support files along with the *real* fonts that can be extracted in any texmf* directory. And this tar.gz file should, of course, be distributed by Y&Y. I don't think that it's your task to do that, Y&Y could do that as well. The interesting thing (at least for Y&Y) is that it doesn't work for teTeX only, but for every TDS compliant system. The only thing you have to provide is a README.teTeX, which explains how to deal with the .map files. I suppose that you want to leave the Lucida support files in teTeX because there are some people using them. But if you ever decide to remove them in the future because the fonts are not free, I strictly recommend to put them to CTAN. I CC this mail to Berthold Horn (as a representative of Y&Y) though I don't know whether Y&Y already does what I suggest. Thomas removed that because of license (AFAIK the license should allow redistribution, modification, and commercial redistribution [e.g. I place in a CD together with other 1 million of files and sell for 1$, that's commercial usage]). If they would change license of .tfm+macros files, I think that they could be easily reintroduced in teTeX. On the other hand I think that for anyone buying the Y&Y MathTime or lucida would be much easier to have them already supported and to just add .pfb files, than to deal with .map files, spread macro files trough TDS, avoiding overlapping, etc. Bye. Giuseppe.
Re: europs.sty in 2.0(.1)
George White wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Thomas Esser wrote:
is it possible that europs is missing in teTeX 2.0(.1)? g-brief 3.0
seems to rely on it.
teTeX has eurosym and marvosym to support the Euro symbol. I am not
sure ig this "dependency" of g-brief to europs is intentional or a bug.
IMHO, g-brief should be happy with just one implementation for the
Euro symbol.
As other have guessed: I don't like that europs approach as the type1
files cannot be distributed with teTeX.
Larger organizations (government, big companies) require that certain
documents conform to standards, which may well include a particular font
for the euro. Times-Roman, etc, aren't distributed with teTeX, but they
(or some facsimile) are commonly found on many popular systems, so it
makes sense that TeX support them. I'm not in a position to know how
organizations across the pond support the euro, but if there is a Type 1
font that is commonly installed beside Times-Roman, then it makes sense
for a new TeX to make it easy to use them.
Regarding Euro symbol, most of the symbols in the Adobe euro font, and
accessed trough the europs.sty, built with a "C" with two orizontal bar are not
official (the official is this one:
http://europa.eu.int/euro/html/dossiers/00203/html/download/constr.tif),
like isn't official euro symbol the \texteuro of textcomp.sty. IMHO the one
provided in font "eurosym" (feymr10) is enough to provide the euro symbol.
In this case maybe .tfm and europs.sty could be provided, but then it
would lack anyway the .pfb files (for Times-Roman they are
generally resident in Printer or PostScript interpreter
trough the URW compatible fonts). The europs.sty license is this:
%% File eurofont.sty
%% copyright Rowland McDonnell 1998
%% email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
%%\This file is part of the eurofont distribution. You can distribute it
%% freely provided that you include the rest of the eurofont distribution
%% with this file and make no more than a nominal charge to cover the
%% costs of distributing it.
%%
%% If you would like to change the contents of this file, please make a
%% copy of it under a different name and change that instead. Keep my
%% copyright notice attached, but make it clear that the new file is your
%% responsibility so you get the credit for the improvements and I don't
%% get blamed for the bugs.
The other consideration is whether it is easier to make europs "just work"
for systems that have the font or to explain why it doesn't work.
IMHO the g-brief.sty doens't work if you don't have the europs.sty
package installed. Look at bottom of g-brief.cls:
===
\ifx \eurofontname\eurofontnone
\IfFileExists{marvosym.sty}
{\RequirePackage{marvosym}}
{\ClassError{g-brief}
{Can't load package marvosym.sty !!!}}
\def\Telefon#1{\def\telefon{#1}} \def\telefon{}
\fi
\ifx \eurofontname\eurofontnone
\IfFileExists{europs.sty}
{\RequirePackage{europs}}
{\ClassError{g-brief}
{Can't load package europs.sty !!!}}
\fi
\ifx \eurofontname\eurofontnone
\IfFileExists{eurosym.sty}
{\RequirePackage{eurosym}}
{\ClassError{g-brief}
{Can't load package eurosym.sty !!!}}
\fi
===
First the \eurofontname or \eurofontnome are never defined in any
macrofile, nor in europs.sty, nor in marvosym.sty, nor in eurosym.sty,
nor in any other macro file, so the \IfFileExists are always performed
for all the three files: marvosym.sty, eurosym.sty, europs.sty.
Probably in the author intention there was to stop the searching for
europackage when one is found. In that case, the last lines should be like
in the attached patch.
Furthermore from what I could see in g-brief.cls there seem no referements to
any symbol of either eurosym.sty, europs.sty or marvosym.sty, so the
loading of some macro package providing the euro symbol, IMHO,
is not needed at all. Maybe this was included for "future" uses.
Bye.
Giuseppe.
--- g-brief.cls.origSat Feb 22 10:28:51 2003
+++ g-brief.cls Sat Feb 22 10:28:10 2003
@@ -373,26 +373,25 @@
{Get current LaTeX2e !!!}}
\fi
-\ifx \eurofontname\eurofontnone
+\ifx \eurofontname\undefined
+\IfFileExists{eurosym.sty}
+ {\RequirePackage{eurosym}\def\eurofontname{eurosym}}
+ {\ClassWarning{g-brief}
+{Can't load package eurosym.sty !!!}}
+\fi
+\ifx \eurofontname\undefined
\IfFileExists{marvosym.sty}
- {\RequirePackage{marvosym}}
- {\ClassError{g-brief}
+ {\RequirePackage{marvosym}\def\eurofontname{marvosym}}
+ {\ClassWarninig{g-brief}
{Can't load package marvosym.sty !!!}}
\def\Telefon#1{\def\telefon{#1}} \def\telefon{}
\fi
-\ifx \eurofontname\eurofontnone
+\ifx \eurofontname\undefined
\IfFileExists{europs.sty}
- {\RequirePackage{europs}}
+ {\RequirePackage{europs}\def\eurofontname{europs}}
{\ClassError{g-brief}
{Can't load package europs.sty !!!}}
\fi
-\ifx \eurofontname\eurofontnone
-\IfFileExists{eurosym.sty}
- {\Requir
Re: europs.sty in 2.0(.1)
> > "Thomas" == Thomas Esser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > As other have guessed: I don't like that europs approach as the > > type1 files cannot be distributed with teTeX. > > On the other hand there is support for Y&Y's Lucida fonts which are > not free as well. and the steady stream of complaints to y&y (who are merely selling agents: bigelow and holmes designed the fonts), and on comp.text.tex, is evidence of the trouble caused by having metrics but no fonts. the situation is of course even worse for lucida, because several subsets of the fonts exist (many of them "free", in the sense that they are bundled for use with other packages) that look sub-standard if used in tex. > I'm not sure whether it is the most user friendly way to provide the > support files along with teTeX, it is probably quite convenient for > people who have the Lucida fonts already installed. "for the minuscule proportion of people who have the lucida fonts..." > Installing the 'real' fonts shouldn't be difficult, but it might be a > bit inconvenient. You have to find out what you need, find out where > it is on the disk, where the files should go, create the appropriate > directories and, because the Y&Y stuff is based on WinDOS, you have to > keep in mind that file names are case sensitive under UNIX. installing the adobe euro fonts (to get back to the point at issue) is the *only* tricky issue in the matter, for most tex users: widnoze users will merely ask for the package to be installed, and it will happen. getting and installing the font is (imo) a big deal: it's a bundle of files with stupid names, and there are no package managers that will just stick them in place. > [arguments about the y&y situation snipped] > > I CC this mail to Berthold Horn (as a representative of Y&Y) though I > don't know whether Y&Y already does what I suggest. y&y doesn't (berthold doesn't believe in the tds anyway, apparently feigning not to understand why people don't just use the "vastly superior" widnoze filing system and y&y tex's flat directory model). personally, i would rather not have any of these commercial fonts in the base distributions (including tetex). i believe they merely add to the feeling that so many people have, that "fonts in tex are deeply obscure" (far worse than merely difficult). we really need a tetex package manager; then the bundles for these fonts can refuse to install if the .pf[ab] isn't available. but that's another argument... robin
Re: europs.sty in 2.0(.1)
> "Thomas" == Thomas Esser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As other have guessed: I don't like that europs approach as the > type1 files cannot be distributed with teTeX. On the other hand there is support for Y&Y's Lucida fonts which are not free as well. I'm not sure whether it is the most user friendly way to provide the support files along with teTeX, it is probably quite convenient for people who have the Lucida fonts already installed. Installing the 'real' fonts shouldn't be difficult, but it might be a bit inconvenient. You have to find out what you need, find out where it is on the disk, where the files should go, create the appropriate directories and, because the Y&Y stuff is based on WinDOS, you have to keep in mind that file names are case sensitive under UNIX. >From the viewpoint of a user things could be much more convenient: Imagine a tar.gz file containing all the support files along with the *real* fonts that can be extracted in any texmf* directory. And this tar.gz file should, of course, be distributed by Y&Y. I don't think that it's your task to do that, Y&Y could do that as well. The interesting thing (at least for Y&Y) is that it doesn't work for teTeX only, but for every TDS compliant system. The only thing you have to provide is a README.teTeX, which explains how to deal with the .map files. I suppose that you want to leave the Lucida support files in teTeX because there are some people using them. But if you ever decide to remove them in the future because the fonts are not free, I strictly recommend to put them to CTAN. I CC this mail to Berthold Horn (as a representative of Y&Y) though I don't know whether Y&Y already does what I suggest. Regards, Reinhard -- Reinhard Kotucha Phone: +49-511-27060390 Marschnerstr. 25 D-30167 Hannover mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO.
Re: europs.sty in 2.0(.1)
George White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 21 Feb 2003 > Larger organizations (government, big companies) require that certain > documents conform to standards, which may well include a particular font > for the euro. Times-Roman, etc, aren't distributed with teTeX, but they > (or some facsimile) are commonly found on many popular systems, so it > makes sense that TeX support them. Please take a look and find that Times-Roman *is* already supported in TeX in various ways: 1. dvips and pdftex can use Times-Roman available for the devices (printers, typesetters, Acrobat Reader); 2. teTeX, fpTeX, TeX Live, MiKTeX distributions already contain Times-Roman like fonts thanks to URW++ (they are GPL licensed, and used when embeding of the font in the output is demanded); 3. As for now the euro sign is not included in the Adobe standard encoding, nor in the Adobe's standard fonts set. > I'm not in a position to know how > organizations across the pond support the euro, but if there is a Type 1 > font that is commonly installed beside Times-Roman, then it makes sense > for a new TeX to make it easy to use them. > > The other consideration is whether it is easier to make europs "just work" > for systems that have the font or to explain why it doesn't work. Well, I don't like to burden the latex oriented community, but we have in the all above distributions qfonts package which contains the euro glyph in 128 dec for times, helvetica, courier, bookman like fonts, compatible for those provided by URW++. As those fonts are also GPL licensed, anybody can feel free to adapt them to make "just work" as you would like. -- Staszek Wawrykiewicz email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: europs.sty in 2.0(.1)
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Thomas Esser wrote: > > is it possible that europs is missing in teTeX 2.0(.1)? g-brief 3.0 > > seems to rely on it. > > teTeX has eurosym and marvosym to support the Euro symbol. I am not > sure ig this "dependency" of g-brief to europs is intentional or a bug. > IMHO, g-brief should be happy with just one implementation for the > Euro symbol. > > As other have guessed: I don't like that europs approach as the type1 > files cannot be distributed with teTeX. Larger organizations (government, big companies) require that certain documents conform to standards, which may well include a particular font for the euro. Times-Roman, etc, aren't distributed with teTeX, but they (or some facsimile) are commonly found on many popular systems, so it makes sense that TeX support them. I'm not in a position to know how organizations across the pond support the euro, but if there is a Type 1 font that is commonly installed beside Times-Roman, then it makes sense for a new TeX to make it easy to use them. The other consideration is whether it is easier to make europs "just work" for systems that have the font or to explain why it doesn't work. -- George White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia
Re: europs.sty in 2.0(.1)
> is it possible that europs is missing in teTeX 2.0(.1)? g-brief 3.0 > seems to rely on it. teTeX has eurosym and marvosym to support the Euro symbol. I am not sure ig this "dependency" of g-brief to europs is intentional or a bug. IMHO, g-brief should be happy with just one implementation for the Euro symbol. As other have guessed: I don't like that europs approach as the type1 files cannot be distributed with teTeX. Thomas
Re: europs.sty in 2.0(.1)
> is it possible that europs is missing in teTeX 2.0(.1)? g-brief 3.0 > seems to rely on it. doesn't seem unreasonable to me. europs is there to deal with a font that's free but undistributable. we've quite enough packages that support fonts that aren't in tetex, as it is. i wouldn't blame thomas for not wanting to extend this situation. robin
europs.sty in 2.0(.1)
Hi, is it possible that europs is missing in teTeX 2.0(.1)? g-brief 3.0 seems to rely on it. Cheers, Harry __ Sie stehen auf POP3? Dann versenden Sie mit WEB.DE FreeMail Ihre SMS aus Outlook oder Netscape! http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021178
