From: rolfl@karl.uio.no (Rolf Lindgren)
Subject: Re: Integrating TeX and PostScript
Organization: Institutt for Humanistisk Informatikk, Blindern, Oslo, Norway
	<1992Sep18.054120.259@linkoping.trab.se>
	<19SEP199217003990@vms.huji.ac.il> <28336@life.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 09:35:58 GMT

In article <28336@life.ai.mit.edu> bkph@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu (Berthold K.P. Horn) writes:
>
>   On platforms with ATM - such as Mac and PC - preview is actually improved by
>   moving to Type 1 fonts.  No restrictions to a fixed set of magnifications
>   and resolutions, for example, the ability to preview EPSF and EPSI figures,
>   and so one.
>

I could've given you this one, _but_ 

	1 ATM is not for free
	2 ATM does not come with source code and cannot be ported to any
	  conceivable platform	
	3 ATM can never be made to work for non-graphical terminals
	4 ATM can never be made part of the standard TeX distribution

ATM is nice if you have a platform that supports it. Having to convert
from dvi to PostScript before previewing does not take anything away from
anybody, but forcing TeX to produce PostScript would.

  2. The possibility of getting characters with information in them which
>	 does not exist in Postscript fonts.
>
>   Not sure what that means, but maybe you are referring to math `fonts' for
>   TeX, which have lots of little extra goodies to make them work properly.
>   But this machinery is all in the TFM file, not in the outline font itself.
>   And there are now several math font sets in Type 1 format that demonstrate
>   that it can be done.

_If_ TeX were made to read afm files rather than tfm files, the following
_might_ be lost:

	1 The ability to create font metric files that use characters from
	  different fonts. Indispensible for foreigners and users of
	  expert fonts.
	2 Remaining virtual font goodies that foreigners need
	3 The ability to add your own ligatures to fonts

(2) can be amended by editing the afm file, but to achieve (1) without
sticking to the tfm format would be tricky.

>
>      3. The possibility to type the file on printers that do not understand
>	 PostScript. (I understand that high class printers are such).
>
>   No problem with ATM installed.  You can even `print' to a fax board! 

ATM does not come with the standard TeX distribution. By keeping the dvi
format, you still allow anybody to print to anything. And you don't remove
this possibility from PostScript/ATM/Graphical platform-users by sticking
to the dvi format.

>
>      4. The ability to get fonts of various kinds, which are free.
>
>   There are hundreds of Type 1 fonts in public domain (although quality is
>   not always what one might hope for).  


And by sticking to the dvi format, even more fonts are available for those
of us without PostScript/ATM/etc.

>
>      5. The possibility to get fonts that match each other esthetically,
>	 which big companies do not find it economically to manufacture.
>	 For example, for a long time there were no commercial  math fonts
>	 which match PostScript fonts, simply because it was not economical
>	 for big firms to produce them (or so they thought).
>
>   There are over 13,000 fonts in Adobe Type 1 form.  Plenty to choose from.
>   There have been plenty of math fonts too.  Problem is that TeX's math `font'
>   is a very specialized complex object, rather than just a collection of
>   glyphs.  As noted above, there are now several math font sets for TeX use.
>

Now, what would I want for the future of TeX?

First, I'd like to abandon TeX for MS-DOS, so that font file names cease
to be a problem. PC users could then choose to buy computers that support
long file names or get free upgrades to OS/2 from IBM (including needed
memory and disks) or whatever.

Second, I'd appreciate it if DEC let all users of the vt100-based family
of terminals upgrade to PostScript display terminals for free or a nominal
charge. Also, CDC should offer to replace all of their terminals with
graphical terminals; likewise for Hewlett-Packard, IBM mainframe, etc.
etc. etc.

Then, Adobe should licence PostScript for free to all owners of
LaserWriters no matter the make and model. I'm talking PostScript Level 2,
so GhostScript is no alternative.

Then, ATM should be ported to MVS, NOS, UNIX, NOS/VE, VMS, IBM, etc. etc.
etc. 

>      This answers your question "what will be lost". It also defines the
>      classes of people that that fit your "by whom?"

OR, if this proves to be impossible, let's keep the dvi format as a least
common denominator for those of us who want to have our cake (dv) and eat
it too (dvips/PostScript/(ATM/DEC's PostScript display terminals)).

I use OzTeX: When do we see dvips for the Macintosh?

>
>
>
>   Berthold K.P. Horn
>   Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
>

--
       Rolf Lindgren           |       "The opinions expressed above are
       616 Bjerke Studentheim  |        not necessarily those of anyone"
       N-0589 OSLO 5           |           rolfl.lindgren@usit.uio.no 
Newsgroups: comp.text.tex