home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!warwick!uknet!pavo.csi.cam.ac.uk!rf
- From: rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns)
- Newsgroups: comp.text.tex
- Subject: Re: Character coding for Postscript fonts
- Message-ID: <1992Nov16.130433.26344@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
- Date: 16 Nov 92 13:04:33 GMT
- References: <BxLMyx.8A7@cs.bham.ac.uk>
- Sender: news@infodev.cam.ac.uk (USENET news)
- Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
- Lines: 27
- Nntp-Posting-Host: lelaps.cl.cam.ac.uk
-
- In article <BxLMyx.8A7@cs.bham.ac.uk>, Howard S. Goodman <hsg@cs.bham.ac.uk> writes:
- |> Is there a standard character coding scheme for using Postscript fonts with
- |> TeX?
-
- Yes. It's defined in the TeXbook.
-
- |> I ask because it seems a bit arbitrary where we put certain characters.
- |> [examples deleted]
-
- _All_ character codes are arbitrary. ASCII is just as arbitrary as
- Adobe encoding, or as Knuth's encoding. I don't myself hold much of a
- candle for Knuth's effort, but at least he did do something, and it's
- been stable for a long time, and it would be madness to go against it
- now...
-
- |> This isn't desperately important, but it does seem more than a little
- |> arbitrary. Is there a convention for Postscript to TeX character coding,
- |> and, if so, what is it?
-
- If you define a code table (as both Knuth and Adobe did), you get to
- say what goes where in it. Matching code tables has become a serious
- problem (i.e., it _is_ desperately important); it was in response to
- this that Knuth introduced his "standard mechanism" of virtual fonts.
- --
- Robin (come back John Drummond) Fairbairns rf@cl.cam.ac.uk
- U of Cambridge Computer Lab, Pembroke St, Cambridge CB2 3QG, UK
- "They had twelve years to lay in wait for us" - Bush supporter on Nov 4
-