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@???
Lancaster University, InfoLab21 +44(0)1524/510.514
Lancaster, LA1 4WA, UK Fax:+44(0)1524/510.492
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
_______________________________________________
Foxet mailing list
Foxet@???
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/foxet
