Re: tex-fonts mailing list now operational

["Thomas J. Reid" <X066TR@TAMVM1.BITNET>]

On Wed, 20 Feb 91 12:05:19 MST you said:
>...
>
>Karl Berry has asked whether the creation of this list should be
>posted on other forums, such as texhax, uk-tex, comp.text.tex, texmag,
>euro-tex, ...  I'm not opposed to doing so, but I fear that it might
>lead to a large membership, diluting the efforts of the hard core
>experts.  I therefore propose a poll of the current membership on this
>question; send your votes directly to beebe@math.utah.edu.
 
Nelson,
 
I feel that the list should be kept as small as possible so that progress
can be made.  I think that this has been the main problem with the DRIV-L
list and the DVI driver standards process: there has been an attempt to
solicit opinions from all TUG members too early in the process.
 
Certainly, all TUG members should be given the opportunity to comment on
standards, but I think that its better to have a small working group
come up with the standards, then post them to TeXhax, publish them in
TUGBoat, or whatever.
 
Regarding my membership in this list:  My duties at TAMU have shifted to
mainly network applications programming.  I am still doing some work
on TeXrox, but it is definitely a background project.  It is unlikely
that I will be contributing very much to the discussion.  If you wish
to keep the membership limited to those actually defining the standards,
feel free to remove my name from the list.
 
I have had some experiences in trying to reduce font names to a naming
convention in my TeXrox development.  TeXrox can use fonts in two different
ways: fonts can be resident on the printer; or TeXrox will build a bitmap
image of characters from fots which are not resident.  Resident fonts are
considerably more efficient than bitmapped ones.  However, the names of
these resident fonts had to be made to fit Xerox naming conventions.
Specifically:
 
   o Names can be from one to six characters consisting of letters or
     digits
 
   o Separate resident fonts are required for different orientations
 
   o Separate resident fonts are required for different magnifications
 
   o For larger fonts, it is necessary to split a single "TeX" font
     into multiple resident fonts
 
   o The names of the fonts needs to be kept distinct from the names
     of other fonts already on the printer.
 
What I did was to declare that some formula which mapped the name used
in TeX to a Xerox name was not practical.  Instead, the program which
converts PK/GF/PXL files into Xerox fonts assigns the names simply in
a sequential fashion.  The format of the name is:
 
   TFxxxo
 
where "xxx" is a three "digit" hexadecimal number assigned by the conversion
utility and "o" indicates the orientation (P for portrait, L for landscape,
I for inverse portrait, and J for inverse landscape).  "TF" stands for
TeX font which distinguishes the font from others on the printer.
 
If the "TeX" font requires multiple Xerox fonts because of size, the
conversion program outputs multiple fonts assigning different numbers
to the "xxx" portion of the name.
 
To make this mapping of names and handling of split fonts transparent to
the TeX user, the font conversion program also outputs an index file
under the name and magnification of the font as known by TeX which gives
the Xerox name or names.  TeXrox uses the index files to do all mapping
which makes the process transparent to the TeX user.
 
(Another feature of the index file is that it remaps character codes.
This was necessary since codes 0x00 through 0x0f are reserved for
Xerox fonts.)
 
I decribe my naming convention merely for your information.  I do not
think that it would apply to the problem that the tex-fonts list is
trying to address.  With mine, I have the luxury of being in control
of all programs which deal with the convention.  Thus, a convention
which relies entirely on centralization works.  I am also able to
conceal the Xerox names from the TeX user in normal circumstances.
 
---Tom Reid