On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
Am 25.12.2008 um 14:52 schrieb Taco Hoekwater:
Mojca Miklavec wrote:
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
I think it's better to use Computer Modern Unicode before you add the cm-super fonts to the minimals, I wrote typescripts for MkIV and also one for MKII with t2a encoding. I can send you the files if you need them, the font files can be downloaded from http://canopus.iacp.dvo.ru/~panov/cm-unicode/ (you need the otf files).
I didn't plan to add cm-super. Is cm-unicode the same as cm-super, but without opticals and in other format?
Be warned that adding otfs doesn't help mkii at all.
I made also tfm files for t2a encoding and pfb files to reduce the file size of the document. If one of you want the files I can send you them.
I'm still curious: what's the difference between cm-super and cm-unicode (apart from size and different format)? One thing that I would like to see preserved within minimals is "full compatibility" in the sense that what works in minimals should also work on TeX Live and MikTeX. Maybe not today because TeX Live is outdated and MikTeX dropped support for ConTeXt for some unpredictable amount of time, but a year later or if someone updates ConTeXt in TeX Live.) In the old ConTeXt distribution there were lots of files that were not present anywhere else, so what worked in the ConTeXt distribution did not work in TeX Live or Minimals which is a pity. Such incompatibilities should be solved in other ways. So I would prefer to add packages that are on CTAN (or are planned to go there) and have some potential to become part of MikTeX and TeX Live. Is anyone working on cm-unicode being added to CTAN (preferrably in TDS-compliant way)? Does that make sense? Mojca