Re: [NTG-context] Latin Modern bug in lm-texnansi-os.enc
Hi,
On the ConTeXT mailing list, Idris posted some messages because he was trying to use oldstyle numerals in the latest Latin Modern release, and was experiencing two pretty big problems:
* really bad kerning around the oldstyle numerals
We would be grateful if we could get more details (which font, which tfm, which encoding, pdftex or tex/dvips, on the screen or on the paper, etc.) My first guess is that proportional figures were used with tabular metrics...
* pdftex generated errors for the typewriter fonts, complaining "glyph `one.oldstyle' undefined" etc.
Yeah... This is the result of our decision to comply with the currently obeying naming conventions (better to say: fashion). The oldstyle figures that appear in ts1 (text companion) encoding are actually *.taboldstyle; the names *.oldstyle are reserved for proportional glyphs. We included also proportional oldstyle figures in LMs (and in the TeX Gyre fonts).
The implementation of 'automatic' oldstyle numbers in ConTeXt uses a set of encoding files that used to ship with LM (lm-xxxxxx-os.enc). By way of a map file fragment, this allows to switch the fonts 'en masse' from lining to oldstyle (and back) without the need for special metric files, which is a pretty nice feature.
Don't understand -- the vertical oldstyle digits, in general, have different metric data (tabular digits differ only with respect to vertical dimensions). So, the replacement of the encoding implies the replacement of TFMs. Or I misundersood something.
Those encoding files now apparently obsolete: they still refer to glyphs named e.g. `one.oldstyle', whereas in the current release of the LM fonts it really should be `one.taboldstyle'.
Yes, as I explained above.
While writing a bug report, I noticed that these encoding files are no longer in the font distribution
No. We have a lot enough of TFMs and I'd be reluctant to add more. The only resort I can see is to use OTFs...
Is this trick to get oldstyle now officially unsupported?
Rather not, I've just learned about it. ;-)
because there are no oldstyle-using TFM files in the LM distribution either ...
There are. As I mentioned, ts1 encoding contains oldstyle tabular figures. Perhaps accessing them needs other tricks, but as long as 256-glyph fonts are to be used, some glyphs must be accessed clumsily. e.g., proportional digits (normal and oldstyle). Cheers -- Jacko
bop@bop.com.pl wrote:
Hi,
On the ConTeXT mailing list, Idris posted some messages because he was trying to use oldstyle numerals in the latest Latin Modern release, and was experiencing two pretty big problems:
* really bad kerning around the oldstyle numerals
We would be grateful if we could get more details (which font, which tfm, which encoding, pdftex or tex/dvips, on the screen or on the paper, etc.) My first guess is that proportional figures were used with tabular metrics...
Yes, but see explanation below.
The implementation of 'automatic' oldstyle numbers in ConTeXt uses a set of encoding files that used to ship with LM (lm-xxxxxx-os.enc). By way of a map file fragment, this allows to switch the fonts 'en masse' from lining to oldstyle (and back) without the need for special metric files, which is a pretty nice feature.
Don't understand -- the vertical oldstyle digits, in general, have different metric data (tabular digits differ only with respect to vertical dimensions). So, the replacement of the encoding implies the replacement of TFMs. Or I misundersood something.
How it used to work: The tabular lining figures are replaced by oldstyle figures by means of an encoding file only. This worked fine (because the oldstyle figures were tabular as well). The height and depth are normally not all that important to TeX, and with the widths the same, there was no need for a different metrics file, just a single encoding file is enough to give all the LM fonts oldstyle (tabular) figures instead of lining figures. This trick broke when the tabular oldstyle figures were renamed and proportional oldstyle figures were added (to the non-typewriter fonts. Both problems Idris had came directly from that the fact that these changes make the encoding file invalid: * the perceived kerning is wrong because the actual proportional glyphs have different sidebearings, and * the monospace fonts gave an error because the glyphs were renamed, so the requested glyphs were no longer existent at all.
While writing a bug report, I noticed that these encoding files are no longer in the font distribution
No. We have a lot enough of TFMs and I'd be reluctant to add more. The only resort I can see is to use OTFs...
Is this trick to get oldstyle now officially unsupported?
Rather not, I've just learned about it. ;-)
Yes, I understand that now. Well, can you please consider starting to support it then? ;-)
because there are no oldstyle-using TFM files in the LM distribution either ...
There are. As I mentioned, ts1 encoding contains oldstyle tabular figures. Perhaps accessing them needs other tricks, but as long as 256-glyph fonts are to be used, some glyphs must be accessed clumsily. e.g., proportional digits (normal and oldstyle).
I know there are way to many TFM files already, I don't want you to ship dozens (hundreds?) of new ones. But from a user's point of view, having to switch to a different encoding for each number is not what I consider 'supporting oldstyle digits'. The trick I explained above works surprisingly well (even if the figures are tabular, not proportional). If I had realized that those encoding files were not created by you yourself, I would not have bothered you at all, as it was not your problem to begin with. But that's life ... Cheers, Taco
participants (2)
-
bop＠bop.com.pl -
Taco Hoekwater