On 4/19/2013 8:16 PM, George N. White III wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Troy Henderson
mailto:thenders@gmail.com> wrote: Did we change something with the type 1? In mkiv ... we probably never finished the mappings ... waste of time now that we have otf.
This makes me believe that I will eventually HAVE to purchase (and by "purchase" I really mean "re-purchase) the OTF versions in order to use my Lucida fonts. This is a bit discouraging.
Of course Troy could complete the existing lucida mkiv vectors in lucida-typeone-math.lfg -)
Troy
We just purchased the OTF versions. I'd rather have TeX developers focus on getting OTF support right than preserving legacy capabilities.
In luatex we're 'mostly' compatible with the old tex engine but as opentype math support is more advanced, the focus is on supporting that as good as possible. Also, as opentype math originates at MS/word with cambria as benchmark that's mostly setting the baseline. Of course, in context mkiv we can go a bit beyond that (and there is already some in place). We can also
For years we have been able to format old docs with current TeX systems. Now I just hope the old docs will work without too many changes using OTF versions of the fonts.
In principle regular math should work ok. At some point we might benefit from the opening up of math parameters (quite some was hard coded in the traditional tex engine, much has been moved to the font parameters and luatex also provides more control). Some constructs (like radicals and accents) are more native now and less depend on macro magic. There will never be full visual compatibility, if only because open type doesn't have the (dimensional) limits of tfm (that made sense at the time). Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------