font hell

font hell

[Allin Cottrell]

I installed ConTeXt last summer and used it for a few things.  Now I
want to do more with it, but I ran into a few problems with the
presentation examples.  Reckoning that I shouldn't submit a problem
report unless I was using the latest version, I just updated to the
November 2001 release.

But now I find I am in font hell!  No documents will compile, no fonts
are found.

My situation is that I have a full web2c tex/latex installation, with
Karl Berry-type tfms and vfs for all the fonts on my system (including
Lucida Bright).  It seems that the latest ConTeXt can't do anything
with these fonts "out of the box".  Is there a reasonably
straightforward way of fixing that?

I understand that ConTeXt is geared towards texnansi encoding
by default, but I really don't want to install hundreds of extra tfms
and map files if that can somehow be avoided.

Thanks for any help.

-- 
Allin Cottrell
Department of Economics
Wake Forest University, NC

Re: font hell

[Berend de Boer]

Allin Cottrell <cottrell@wfu.edu> writes:

> But now I find I am in font hell!  No documents will compile, no fonts
> are found.

Yep, me too :-)

Are there really people who have this stuff working with the standard
postscript fonts somehow?

The last time I tried, everything failed (two months a go or so).

Allin, there are two documents giving more detail on this process,
look for them at the ConTeXt site, they're called something with
texfont.pl or so.

In the mean time I suggest to back to your earlier version. There
hasn't been much change in the presentations stuff as far as I'm aware
of that.

-- 
Groetjes,

Berend. (-:

Re: font hell

[Allin Cottrell]

On 19 Jan 2002, Berend de Boer wrote:

> > But now I find I am in font hell!  No documents will compile, no fonts
> > are found.
>
> Yep, me too :-)
>
> Are there really people who have this stuff working with the standard
> postscript fonts somehow?

Actually, I just made some progress.  The point seems to be that there
is a whole new naming scheme for tfms in the 2001-11 ConTeXt: tfm
names are prefixed with "ec-", "texnansi-" and so on, depending on the
encoding.  You must specify a default encoding, then ensure that
the tfms can be found.  One way would be to copy or symlink the
original tfms to the new names, but better (IMO) is to add a set of
"fontsynonyms" to ConTeXt's type-enc.tex, so that the old names are
usable.  For example, I added the following so that the existing
Y&Y tfms for Lucida would be used:

  \definefontsynonym [texnansi-lbr]               [lbr]
  \definefontsynonym [texnansi-lbd]               [lbd]
  \definefontsynonym [texnansi-lbdi]              [lbdi]
  \definefontsynonym [texnansi-lbi]               [lbi]
  \definefontsynonym [texnansi-lbrsc]             [lbrsc]
  \definefontsynonym [texnansi-lbdsc]             [lbdsc]
  \definefontsynonym [texnansi-lbsl]              [lbsl]

My next question is, how do we get the presentation templates working
with the 2001/11 release?  The directives to make headings boldface
are broken (e.g. \bfc doesn't do anything).

Allin Cottrell.

Re: font hell

[Hans Hagen]

At 02:11 PM 1/19/2002 -0500, Allin Cottrell wrote:

>Actually, I just made some progress.  The point seems to be that there
>is a whole new naming scheme for tfms in the 2001-11 ConTeXt: tfm
>names are prefixed with "ec-", "texnansi-" and so on, depending on the
>encoding.  You must specify a default encoding, then ensure that
>the tfms can be found.  One way would be to copy or symlink the
>original tfms to the new names, but better (IMO) is to add a set of
>"fontsynonyms" to ConTeXt's type-enc.tex, so that the old names are
>usable.  For example, I added the following so that the existing
>Y&Y tfms for Lucida would be used:
>
>   \definefontsynonym [texnansi-lbr]               [lbr]
>   \definefontsynonym [texnansi-lbd]               [lbd]
>   \definefontsynonym [texnansi-lbdi]              [lbdi]
>   \definefontsynonym [texnansi-lbi]               [lbi]
>   \definefontsynonym [texnansi-lbrsc]             [lbrsc]
>   \definefontsynonym [texnansi-lbdsc]             [lbdsc]
>   \definefontsynonym [texnansi-lbsl]              [lbsl]
>
>My next question is, how do we get the presentation templates working
>with the 2001/11 release?  The directives to make headings boldface
>are broken (e.g. \bfc doesn't do anything).

It looks worse than it is. Actually, the old definitions *assumed* texnansi 
while the new are more explicit.

if you look into type-enc.tex and search for berry, you will notice that 
you can use the standard texmf names by saying things like

\usetypescript[berry][ec]

some more info can be found in cont-sys.rme

 From the 'edu' address i deduce that you're in the usa. For english, it 
seldom matters what encoding you use, which is why the old methods worked 
well. In europe many encodings are in use and one reason for moving to the 
new scheme, is that as soon as one starts fooling around with caps and 
slants the berry naming scheme is not enough, which is why texfont.pl uses 
longer names.

Now, when you want to use the free fonts that come with tex live with 
context, the overhead in extra tfm (that is, if you want them) is small 
compared to the ones already there.

Another reason for the existing scheme is that it makes managing map files 
more comvenient, esp if you also install commercial fonts.

If you have lbr's, you can use texfont to install them. The

I'm sorry if the change is confusing; if i need to add more mapping to raw

Hans
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl
                       Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
  tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   fall-back web server: 
www.pragma-pod.nl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------