[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: About atomic encoding
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: About atomic encoding
- From: bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>
- Date: 08 Apr 1994 12:24:04 -0400 (EDT)
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Remember that the majority of published technical documents don't use,
and probably never will use, MF fonts. The AMS is a notable
exception, but even they use Autologic Times for the math core font
(I'm sure barbara will correct me if I'm out of line!)
while we still use autologic times for some of our work, we are, as
rapidly as possible (i.e., not as fast as we'd like) switching over
to postscript, and will be using the monotype times and compatible
fonts for the principal alphabets that occur in math. that includes
greek, of course, and (if we find we need it) cyrillic.
symbols of operation and relation, etc., are still from the cm*
fonts, although we are now using the type1 versions of those.
we have chosen lucida bright and lucida newmath for the make-over
of our "news" journal; this is supposed to hit the streets with the
first issue of 1995. postscript only, of course.
let me plead for understanding from authors for the difficulties
of production. if authors have "mix and match" fonts with the same
names (i know, nobody said that exactly) but different complements,
production would be a nightmare, whether we were receiving tex or
dvi files (we publish from both kinds of files sent by authors).
we already have to stop and investigate checksum mismatches when
we are trying to process dvi files and don't have the tex originals.
and if tex files either cited fonts we don't have or called for
some that matched the names of ones we have but not the content,
there'd be a lot of nervous breakdowns here when the results that
we were expecting from the paper copies that authors send in for
verification don't match the output from the typesetter.
worse yet, we are now beginning to set camera copy direct to
negatives (some printers prefer them to positive copy) -- it
simply isn't possible to proofread those, so any problems between
laser proof output and the negs may simply go unnoticed until
after a publication is in print -- and an embarrassment to
i don't want to put anyone in a straitjacket, but one of the
promises of tex is that you get the same output from the same
input; let's be careful not to blow this down the tubes!