Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!van-bc!ubc-cs!alberta!alberta!simon
From: simon@alberta.uucp (Simon Tortike)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Converting LaTeX fonts to PostScript
Message-ID: <1990Jun1.035223.1080@cs.UAlberta.CA>
Date: 1 Jun 90 03:52:23 GMT
References: <759@fornax.UUCP>
Sender: news@cs.UAlberta.CA (News Administrator)
Reply-To: simon@alberta.UUCP (Simon Tortike)
Distribution: na
Organization: Petroleum Engg, U of Alberta
Lines: 50

In article <759@fornax.UUCP> mcdonald@fornax.UUCP (Ken Mcdonald) writes:
>I'd like to make use of many of the symbols available to TeX/LaTeX users,
>but do NOT want to use any of the Mac variations of LaTeX.  So, what I
>need to do is convert the LaTeX fonts into PostScript, make up a matching
>bitmap font, and use those with my favorite word processor.  There are a
>number of questions this brings up, and I'd appreciate it if anyone out 
>there in netland could help me out:
>
This does not answer your particular questions on making the fonts yourself,
but FTL (Toronto) had
an implementation of the Computer Modern (CM) math fonts as outlines when
their MacTeX was around.  I was not much impressed with it.  BlueSky 
Research (TeXtures) have a beta version of the *full* set of CM fonts in Post-
Script for sale (Adobe type 1, I believe), but they have not yet distributed
samples that I have seen. There should be no reason why you cannot use
these with any Mac application.

On the balance of using WYSIWYG word processing vs. TeX, I still find the
latter much more flexible for handling the larger documents, not to mention
having better looking output than the desktop publishing 
products.  I refer to technical docs. containing equations in particular.
I used mail merging for reference numbers in docs in Word 1.0 in 1985---that was
one of the reasons I was driven to learn TeX.  Now, if there was only a way of
helping people learn TeX without much effort...just like staying fit...or 
remembering things (isn't applied intuition the phrase?).

The items being raised---references, symbols, equation numbering and references,chapter, section, etc, numbering---eventually all require a level of 
programming, which in part, is what TeX is: a programming language. 
Raising the level of complexity required means more effort to produce the 
results. There is no free lunch (yet).   Perhaps
a click-and-point TeX until the user knows all the short cuts.  I can type
equations about 5 times faster in TeX than in MathType or Expressionist, even
faster if it is going to be a multiline equation.  This includes time to
run the typeset command in TeX and pasting in the equations in the WYSIWIG
documents.  If revisions and
wholesale scavenging of docs are included, the difference is even greater.

TeX lets you concentrate on the content of the document much more than the
look of it: WYSIWYG tends to invert that aspect.  Of course, this is
a generalisation, all of us can get carried away at times. 
For short docs. it always seems easier to use one or
other of the word processors.  Of course, it depends whether the contents
or the sight are meant to impress the reader.  One hopes both.
Ugly documents have come out of both TeX and the WYSIWIG programs.
-------------------
W. Simon Tortike,                         | tel    : 403/492-3338
Dept of Mining, Metallurgical             | fax    : 403/492-7219
      and Petroleum Engineering,          | CA*net : simon@cs.UAlberta.CA
University of Alberta,                    | uucp   : simon@alberta.uucp
Edmonton, AB, CANADA T6G 2G6.             |