[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Font proposal
From: |
Matej Cepl |
Subject: |
Font proposal |
Date: |
Sat, 20 May 2000 22:49:56 +0200 |
Hi,
thinking about new font definitions, I have got a idea (not very
original) about another possible structure of font names. What
strucks me most is the question, why there are different font names
for different languages necessary at all? After all, @Language
symbol is supposed to carry exactly the same information as CE
suffix.
Why not to make it similarily as it is done in Windows95 and above,
where you have only one TimesNewRoman font for all languages
(even with azbuka, which seems to me stupid -- Uwe, what is a
common denomnator in the shape of the glyphs between the latin
characters and cyrilic ones?) and you need only to switch languages
to get correct glyphs. I know, there is Unicode somewhere beneath
all the stuff (although not necessarily), but why not to make some
kind aliases possible. So I would have something like
{ @FontDef
@Tag { AvantGardeCE-Base } # if necessary to have
# unambiguous
label
@Family { AvantGarde }
@Face { Base }
@Name { AvantGarde-Medium }
@Metrics { AG-Md }
@ExtraMetrics { AG-Md+ }
@Mapping { LtLatin2.LCM }
}
The benefit of this construct is obvious, I suppose: number of local
setups could be drastically reduced, because I would not have to
keep two separate version of slides (for example), just because I
need to set up @TitlePageFont to local version of Helvetica.
This idea seems to me so obvious, that I have probably overlooked
something. What's wrong with it?
Have a nice day
Matej Cepl
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Font proposal,
Matej Cepl <=