[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: fontname postfixes
>>>In any case, this - unlike other things like reencoding - is PS specific.
>>So how come you spend so much time trumpeting the ability of Y&Y TeX to do,
>>erm, fount re-encoding, without tying the user to a PostScript method?
>I think you misunderstood (or maybe I misunderstand your response).
I misunderstood - apologies.
>>> Neither of which is good nomenclature. Type 1 would be better.
>>Not really - it's just another partial name with its own confusion. It
>>just happens to be a partial name that meets your political needs.
>Just like Adobe's calling them "font programs" serves their polticial
Well... They are, aren't they?
>>>And these Type 1 fonts are most often used *without* any PS interpreter.
>>Calling them PostScript Type 1 founts is best. It removes all the
>>ambiguity you get from calling them `PostScript' (only) or `Type 1' (often
>>abbreviated to T1) only.
>OK, you win, I will call them "PS Type 1" to avoid all possible confusion.
>Even though that name suggests to all Unix people that you need PS to use
Well... Since Unix people don't have access to ATM, who can blame them for
this misconception? You can't avoid *ALL* confusion, but you can minimise