Re: new cm-super and cm-super-x11
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 00:27 +0200, Florent Rougon wrote:
> Ralf Stubner <ralf.stubner@web.de> wrote:
>
> > The attached versions is based on your fonts.scale but registers the
> > fonts also for iso10646-1. I am not sure if koi8-r would also be useful.
>
> While we're at it, do you know the rule telling which charsets should be
> declared like that? Surely cm-super does not contain every character
> from iso10646-1... Does iso10646-1 get a special treatment where a
> partial coverage is acceptable, because it is so large?...
Sorry, I haven't seen any documentation for this. One could try to infer
something from
,----[ mkfontscale(1) ]
| -f fuzz
| set the fraction of characters that may be missing in
| large encodings to fuzz percent. Defaults to 2%.
`----
or
,----[ ttmkfdir(1) ]
|-m <number>
| maximal number of missing characters per encoding
| (default is 5)
`----
but non of these criterias is fulfilled for iso10646-1. So I guess you
are right with suspecting that iso10646-1 gets special treatment. After
all, for example for sfxc1000.pfb (Computer Modern Bold Extended Caps
and Small Caps), which misses a few characters from Latin1, mkfontscale
uses iso10646-1 and adobe-fontspecific. And since mkfontscale is an
official X program, I assume it does the right thing here. Although it
is quite dumb when it come to fonts with different weights ...
cheerio
ralf
Reply to: