[texhax] TeX-compatible font containing yogh?
D. R. Evans
doc.evans at gmail.com
Thu Apr 23 00:21:37 CEST 2009
Karl Berry said the following at 04/22/2009 03:45 PM :
> that the LM family contains no yogh (nor even an ezh, which would do at a
> Scott Pakin's comprehensive symbol guide (texdoc comprehensive) has some
> mentions of yogh, none of ezh. I don't know if they are better than
> what you found.
"texdoc comprehensive" does absolutely nothing here (well, other than
return me to the shell prompt).
> available in plain TeX-compatible format,
> BTW, if a font can be used in TeX at all, it can be used in plain.
> There is no such thing as a LaTeX-only font. LaTeX is "only" TeX
> macros, after all.
I meant "as opposed to a font intended for some completely different
purpose"; i.e., basically something without .tfm files. Sorry for the
I know that for a font wizard like you, almost anything is plain-TeX
compatible. For mere mortals (in my case, very mortal) who have never
mastered the intricacies of fontinst, virtual fonts, etc., basically we
need a package that simply installs and works :-)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://tug.org/pipermail/texhax/attachments/20090422/112f1400/attachment.bin
More information about the texhax