teexdwu@ioe.lon.ac.uk (DOMINIK WUJASTYK) (05/31/91)
I recently had a need for a slanted version of the Computer Modern font cmssbx10. So I altered the slant (or tilt ratio) in the parameter file of cmssbx10, fired up Metafont, and out popped exactly the font I needed. I am calling it ssbxi10. So far so good. But now I want to send a copy to be lodged in the font library of my local L300 phototypesetter, so I thought I ought to pay attention to a proper, public name for this font. 1/ Would it be correct to prefix "cm" to its name? It is definitely a (small) variant of a cm font, but perhaps "cm" is reserved for the set described by Knuth in vol.E? His note on page 9 makes it clear that he anticipated people would do exactly what I have done. 2/ The only dictum I know from Knuth himself (loc. cit.) is that no font should call itself by the name of the fonts in vol.E unless its TFM is identical. In other words, he doesn't want variants appearing under the same names, which is only common sense. 3/ If I make the name cmssbxi10, then I run into the "lcirclew10" problem, i.e., the name exceeds DOS limits (the LCD). 4/ If I use Karl Berry's scheme (TUGboat 11, p.517 ff.), then I have to make up a foundry name for CM: say "k" for "Knuth" (although the SS fonts were designed by Southall). Then we get "kcsbox10" if we choose "cs" as the typeface family "computer modern sans serif". "box" = bold oblique extended. I don't like any of this. Frankly, I think I should stay as close as possible to the name cmssbx10, since this is the font I have modified. There seems no way forward without some compromise, so I think I will plump for cmsbxi10, dropping one of the "s"s of "ss". Maybe it's time I got a *real* operating system! Dominik
dhosek@euler.claremont.edu (Don Hosek) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May31.091654.10090@ioe.lon.ac.uk>, teexdwu@ioe.lon.ac.uk (DOMINIK WUJASTYK) writes: > I recently had a need for a slanted version of the Computer Modern > font cmssbx10. So I altered the slant (or tilt ratio) in the > parameter file of cmssbx10, fired up Metafont, and out popped exactly > the font I needed. I am calling it ssbxi10. So far so good. But > now I want to send a copy to be lodged in the font library of my > local L300 phototypesetter, so I thought I ought to pay attention to > a proper, public name for this font. When I built a similar font for a local document style, I used Berry's naming scheme sans the foundry letter. cmssbxti became cmbosx. At first, the Berry scheme seems to give difficult names, but as one works with it more, it gets more intutitive. -dh
tomb@hplsla.HP.COM (Tom Bruhns) (06/04/91)
teexdwu@ioe.lon.ac.uk (DOMINIK WUJASTYK) writes: >I recently had a need for a slanted version of the Computer Modern >font cmssbx10. So I altered the slant (or tilt ratio) in the >parameter file of cmssbx10, fired up Metafont, and out popped exactly >the font I needed. I am calling it ssbxi10. So far so good. But As a novice, I can't help much, but is it really right to call it something that implies italic, when it's actually slanted? Seems like "sl" should go in there somewhere... But sounds like Don H. has a more concrete suggestion. (BTW, also from my novice viewpoint, it's nice to hear success stories like this; makes me less afraid to try some things myself. Thanks for that side effect of your posting!)
tomb@hplsla.HP.COM (Tom Bruhns) (06/05/91)
tomb@hplsla.HP.COM (Tom Bruhns) (That's me!) wrote: > As a novice, I can't help much, but is it really right to call it > something that implies italic, when it's actually slanted? Seems like > "sl" should go in there somewhere... So I went home and looked at Don Knuth's .mf source files and found that he called it cmssi... So I guess I can't argue with that (though it does seem like it really isn't italic, and Knuth seems to make a big point in the TeXBook about the difference between italic and slanted...)