dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (10/09/90)
In article <DAMIAN.CUGLEY.90Oct8161513@msc7.prg.ox.ac.uk>, Damian.Cugley@prg.ox.ac.uk (Damian Cugley) writes... >This is an example of the fundamental problems with having a fixed >encodoing for characters built into a font - and is one of the places >where PostScript wins over TeX hands-down. A given PostScript font can >be rearranged in whatever order you like because glyphs are acessed >using symbollic names; with TeX you'd have to build into the METAFONT >code the necessary admin to produce characters in an ASCII-style >ordering. Well a couple of things: (1) TeX *can* have variable character encodings through the VF facility. And, contrary to popular belief, TeX 3.0 is *not* required to use VF features (although a DVI-processor that supports the feature _is_). (2) The problem you pointed out is not a TeX difficulty so much as a bitmap font format/software problem. In the example I gave which I've deleted, I would be running conversion software to take PK files to whatever Mac calls its fonts; so the deficiency doesn't even lie specifically in the TeX format since it appears _after_ we've left all things TeX behind. And for a completely unrelated point, I personally wish that all the features provided by virtual fonts had been encoded directly into TeX itself. Think of how much unbelievable flexibility would be available. One could support any character code one wanted in that case. Oh well, I guess that's water under the bridge now. -dh --- Don Hosek TeX, LaTeX, and Metafont support, consulting dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu installation and production work. dhosek@ymir.bitnet Free Estimates. uunet!jarthur!ymir Phone: 714-625-0147 finger dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu for more info