> > I agree with this. The font naming system should now be changed. The 8+3
> > Yes! Please can we have the font naming system changed?
> The font naming scheme,
> and the equally important TDS, were the work of various ad hoc working
> groups in the early/mid 90s.
I've been thinking about a change when trying to adapt the corelpak-fonts
to our needs, but I came to another conclusion. What we are in fact
interested in is a flexible system on the user level which hides the
font and file detail, and in which it does not really matter how the
backend names are. There was not much time to work it out, but my
first draft had a user level syntax
\usepackage [rm=palatino, sf=univers, tt=lettergothic] {corelpak}
where the font configuration internals were driven by a back end driver
which specified the internal name of the font and its default type so
that (with the exception of decorative fonts) every font knew it would
be the default rm/sf/tt font.
There is of course the question of document integrity, which asks
whether it is better to replace foundry A palatino (say) by foundry B
palatino or not to typeset the document, which needs to be answered
when talking about which degree of font specification precision is
necessary. Also, we are only just talking about text (non-math) fonts,
the very usual encodings etc. aren't we.
(this very first draft is of 1999/06/21, and whoever is interested may
use it as a design study ...)
Karsten
--
Karsten Tinnefeld [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Informatik 2, Universität Dortmund T +49 231 755-4737
44221 Dortmund, Deutschland M +49 172 2877586 F +49 231 755-2047
