Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wuarchive!uunet!munnari.oz.au!csc.anu.edu.au!manuel!anucsd!csis!ken From: ken@csis.dit.csiro.au (Ken Yap) Newsgroups: comp.text.tex Subject: Re: Using TeX for the UNIX man pages Message-ID: <1991Jan2.001931.15399@csis.dit.csiro.au> Date: 2 Jan 91 00:19:31 GMT References: <1990Dec28.003306.12375@csis.dit.csiro.au> Organization: CSIRO Division of Information Technology Lines: 27 The other point which is relevant only to TeXies: In article : >The one >specific virtual output device is the one for which DVI files are >encoded currently; historically, as I remarked (and you repeated), DVU >files were tailored not just for 1/65k resolution, but also for the CM >font layout (dependent on obscure Stanford conventions), and both the >resolution and the font layout had to be mapped onto those for the real >device. The recent introduction of virtual fonts has been motivated >precisely by the desire to alleviate the font layout mapping problem, to >accomodate non CM fonts more easily. We should distinguish between TeX the program and plain TeX here. When most people talk about TeX, they mean the plain format. TeX the program knows nothing about font layouts. Neither do DVI files encode any knowledge about Stanford keyboards. They just contain codes saying things like set character NN from font XX. If someone wishes to design a new format using non-CM fonts with characters in different positions, that's no problem and will not upset any trip validation tests. In fact this has been done with some approaches to using PS fonts. So there is no font layout mapping problem with TeX, only a problem if one wishes to retain plain's layout. This is also why it is always a bad idea to embed \charXX calls in user copy. Do this in macros if you must. I could sure use a cmtt with standard ASCII mapping. Ok, ok, cmtt's with ISO8859 mappings.