[Foxet] fonts again

Adam Lindsay atl at comp.lancs.ac.uk
Sun Apr 3 20:29:38 CEST 2005


Bruce D'Arcus said this at Sun, 3 Apr 2005 14:16:07 -0400:

>Adam Lindsay wrote:
>
>> Okay, you name 'Gill Sans' as the font family here, but to a computer,
>> 'Gill Sans' is not the same as 'GillSans' down below, right?
>
>Part of the problem is that I've never really understood the logic of 
>HOW ConTeXt thinks about fonts.  It's incredibly frustrating; right up 
>there with trying to understand xml namespaces in a deep way!

Even more frustrating is how foXet adds a slightly different, somewhat
more modern and flexible way of thinking about fonts. 

For me, the metaphor of pachinko keeps coming up when thinking about
fonts in ConTeXt: each font synonym sets up another pin to bounce off

>Re: your suggestion, yes it was a little ambiguous, but I managed to get 
>Gills Sans to work.  I still really don't have a clue how to tackle what 
>I'm really after though: the Adobe fonts.  I forget Adam, do you have 
>xetex-friendly typescripts setup for these fonts?

Um, no, I haven't, not in any polished form. Half of the adobe type
classics typescripts could be used, and all you need to do is get a set
of encoding=uc typescripts to talk with XeTeX.

Alternatively (as I'm *trying* to move forward with PhD work), I could
set out my placard as a consultant. :)
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Adam T. Lindsay, Computing Dept.     atl at comp.lancs.ac.uk
 Lancaster University, InfoLab21        +44(0)1524/510.514
 Lancaster, LA1 4WA, UK             Fax:+44(0)1524/510.492
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



More information about the Foxet mailing list