Florent Rougon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Küster) wrote: > >> Hallo Florent, > > Hallo, and thanks for the report. > >>> Maybe this can be changed in the afm files, and the tfm files >>> regenerated with afm2tfm? > > I wouldn't feel comfortable with that. I would prefer using tftopl on > the tfm files, modifying the fontdimens in the PL file and using pltotf > to get back to the TFM format. > > Also, I think modifying the afm files would bring nothing, because I > would be very surprised if the AFM specification knew about fontdimens > (if you look at the lmodern AFM files, you'll see the fontdimens in > Comment lines).
You know more about this than I do... Yes, using tftopl/pltotf is probably much better. >> There is a better possibility - you can change the \fontdimen parameter >> in lmodern.sty, giving it a new version number. This way it is clear >> that it is a Debian-patched version. > > This is nice, because it is easy (text file), traceable for the user and > the change would affect only one file. However, this solution has the > disadvantage, compared to the one where we would alter the TFM files, > that it would not fix anything for non-LaTeX users (such as plain TeX or > ConTeXT users), I guess. Ralf Stubner has suggested a different approach in de.comp.text.tex: We could add the corrected tfm files with names changed, and patch lmodern.sty to use these changed tfm files. plain TeX users would have to do it themselves, but they could do it. > Original file | After a round-trip conversion > ------------------------------------------------ > FontSpecific | FONTSPECIFIC > LMTypewriter10 | LMTYPEWRITER10 > > So, perhaps this is not very important and we can consider the > conversion "approximately lossless". > > What do you think? I think "fix the conversion programs". But I don't even know how to prettyprint web files... I guess we can consider it lossless. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
