[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Inverted (=reflected) N
- To: "Y&Y, Inc." <support@YandY.com>
- Subject: Re: Inverted (=reflected) N
- From: Chris Rowley <C.A.Rowley@open.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 11:17:44 GMT
- Cc: Ulrik Vieth <firstname.lastname@example.org>, BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG, email@example.com
Berthold wrote --
> >It would seem to me to make more sense if the names of the glyphs were
> >decided by the font designer then this particular problem would not arise.
> Well, they are. Chuck Bigelow made up what he thought are reasonable
> glyph names when he designed Lucida Sans Unicode. And he certainly
> qualifies as a font designer.
In that case, how can two names exist for some glyphs (for type 1 and PS).
> >But I know that you are talking about a world with fixed names (no
> >synonyms allowed); but there will never be one such fixed list, so why
> >not prepare for the world of multiple tables or, better, persuade the
> >"not made here" worlds to support synonyms.
> Not unlike trying to move the earth with a teaspoon. They do not give
> a rat's ass about the TeX world, I can assure you. Excuse the language,
Whatever the language, neither do I as far as font technology is
concerned. There are far wider and more important reasons to move
away form a fixed-name-and-number technology (and there are people
doing it too, mostly in the real (but very small) world of high quality
> but there have been several issues that I have tried to budge either
> Adobe or MS on that was most frustrating and hopeless. And I always
> get amused by postings on comp.text.tex that say something like
> `pressure should be brought to bear on ....' What pressure?
> We can't even get them to fix obvious bugs that would be easy to fix.
> Because they affect a miniscule fringe of their user population.
Exactly, so unless you want this situation to become worse, so that
everyone throughout the world wastes their own time and money filling
the coffers of 2 or 3 US corporations, you should not simply accept
this but cooperate with other small/medium institutions who are
working towards a better future and have, I think, had some influence
on some aspects of the internals of software such as MS-Word (not that
it is any less buggy, but bugs in basically sane software are somewhat
easier to diagnose and cope with). This is a very slow and
frustrating process, of course.
> >Even if we do choose to use one of the Lucida glyph name systems as
> >one possible set of names for TeX or MathML mathematical entities (or
> >glyphs) this will still be the choice of that user community and it
> >will not get any closer to an impossible ideal of unique names.
> I know: because their design is flawed, we will rather come up with our own
> flawed design. We'll end up with something that almost does the right
> thing. Not unlike 8r, which could have been LY1 and been much more
> useful. But that would have been using something that was invented
I see nothing in this terrible conspiracy called "The TeX World" that
prevents widespread use of the no doubt highly superior LY1.
What I spend considerable time trying to provide is a system where
such a change to a superior system will be easy and transparent to users.