From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/20604 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: karl@freefriends.org (Karl Berry) Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: Fleurons Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 16:43:08 -0400 Message-ID: <200505312043.j4VKh8b03194@f7.net> References: <429C3913.7090105@wxs.nl> Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1117611843 7220 80.91.229.2 (1 Jun 2005 07:44:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 07:44:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ntg-context@ntg.nl, Jerzy.Ludwichowski@uni.torun.pl, v.r.w.Schaa@gsi.de, staw@gust.org.pl Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Wed Jun 01 09:44:02 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DdNsW-0001BJ-Hw for gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2005 09:43:04 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E5512813; Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:45:47 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 20732-05-6; Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:45:42 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id D972212807; Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:45:33 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id A895F127B5 for ; Tue, 31 May 2005 22:43:20 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 14980-07 for ; Tue, 31 May 2005 22:43:19 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from f7.net (consort.superb.net [209.61.216.22]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CCDC12780 for ; Tue, 31 May 2005 22:43:18 +0200 (CEST) X-Envelope-From: karl@freefriends.org X-Envelope-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl Original-Received: (from karl@localhost) by f7.net (8.11.7-20030920/8.11.7) id j4VKh8b03194; Tue, 31 May 2005 16:43:08 -0400 Original-To: pragma@wxs.nl In-Reply-To: <429C3913.7090105@wxs.nl> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 09:45:28 +0200 X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on smtp.ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ntg.nl Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:20604 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:20604 this differes per year; i keep changing these names and always lag behind one tex live version TL has always distributed both pzdr.tfm and uzdr.tfm. I don't have an easy way to check the situation in teTeX. because i find out afterwards Well, that's what testing is for, it's not like anyone was keeping it a secret. There was 4+ months of time for it last year. Anyway ... one of the previous tex lives someone moved the urw's to some 35vf folder, after that things went bad (got lost and such); i discussed this with Staszek and he reverted it; Starting in TL 2003, uzdr.tfm was indeed put under urw35vf instead of just urw. I do not know/remember why, or who did it (though we could check the logs), or what "got lost" as a result. It is also still the case in the current sources, so I also don't know what you mean by Staszek "reverted it". Staszek, what did you do? Meanwhile, the afm and pfb are under just urw/. It seems odd, though I can imagine how it could happen. this kind of things has to do with the everlasting some urw fonts can be exchanged with some built in ps fonts as claimed by walter cum suis (which is not true, ask nelson -) Clearly the URW fonts are not 100% identical to the Adobe fonts, but in practice we have to accept the URW Type 1's under the p* names, because the p* names are what most documents have historically used. We can't suddenly make those documents unusable, that would be disastrous. For that matter, the Adobe fonts themselves have changed over the years. Nothing is perfect. i have no problem if this introduces a mess for latex users Well, I do! but context (users) expect the whole set of urw (afm & pfb) to be present because they generate other encodings and such; uzdr.afm and uzdr.pfb are both in the current TL sources, and always have been. I know of no reason or suggestion to delete them. i think that we need to get rid of the urw mappings in the aliases file I agree. I have now deleted the aliases file altogether from the TL sources. We'll see how that flies. I don't know if that will change anything wrt gwTeX, though. k