FMi on text symbol encodings
Mon, 1 Mar 1999 17:01:46 -0500
Thierry Bouche writes:
> » This isn't a question of particularly current interest however, so we may
> » well leave things as they are, for now.
> Well, it is, if you consider the same problem for T1 fonts missing
> Eng, etc. Should it be T1, should it be something else?
> Is latex sufficiently robust to manage a T1a exactly as pure T1?
it is not (right now) and i wouldn't recommend it within NFSS2 but TS1 is
it is true that T1 is defective as well (not only in this respect --- ask
Berthold and he will tell you (and i do agree with most of those arguments))
but T1 is *mostly* okay and all we got right now without a major redesign ie a
further fontencoding that really exists.
but in TS1 half or more of the glyphs are not there in most fonts so that's
quite a different dimension
ps i appologize if one of my addresses is causing bounces on this list (i try
to get this fixed but ...)