To: CyrTeX-en@vsu.ru
Subject: Re: WN fonts and competitors
References: <E11xNky-0001U3-00@topo.math.u-psud.fr>
From: Vladimir Volovich <vvv@vvv.vsu.ru>
Date: 15 Dec 1999 02:30:17 +0300
In-Reply-To: Laurent Siebenmann's message of "Mon, 13 Dec 1999 06:10:44 +0100"
Message-ID: <m3puw9f6d2.fsf@vvv.vsu.ru>
Lines: 59
User-Agent: Gnus/5.070099 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.99) Emacs/20.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

"LS" == Laurent Siebenmann writes:

 LS> *Maybe* Hubert Holin holin@mathp7.jussieu.fr since he signs
 LS> something nearby.  See fonts/cm/sauter/holin/ on ctan.

thanks for the pointer.

 LS> The OT2 encoding is in itself a neat and useful thing.  What is
 LS> unfortunate about wncy metrics is the fact that the ligatures for
 LS> latin typing of cyrillic deny access to correct kerning and
 LS> hyphenation concerning the letters involved on the ligatures.

yes. 8-bit cyrillic font encodings are more "clean" WRT hyphenation
and kerning, and do not need "false" ligatures.

 >> --- typing ts yields the cyrillic letter \ts/.  thus "sovetski"
 >> must be typed "sovet\cydot ski".

more portable way is to use \textcompwordmark instead of \cydot
(recent official version of ot2enc.def does not define \cydot command
anymore). one can \let\cwm\textcompwordmark and use \cwm instead of
\textcompwordmark if she finds the latter a bit long to type.

 >> To avoid the disadvantages (a) and (b) while retaining the AMS
 >> Washington Cyrillic typography, the AMS recommends that one use
 >> instead the parallel WLCY virtual series issued by the AMS in
 >> ".vf", form. These present the same glyphs but *exclude* the
 >> troublesome ligatures.  (The ams posting of the WLCY virtual fonts
 >> is to be found on ctan and on http://www.ams.org.)

 LS> Questions.

 LS> 1) Is there a version of the "WN" without the poisonous
 LS> ligatures. Maybe "WL" fonts?

i just created such virtual fonts which refer to WN fonts but do not
have "false" ligatures, and sent them to you in a separate letter. Are
these WL fonts important enough to have them officially supported?

 LS> 2) Which came first, the LH series with MS-DOS cp866 encoding or
 LS> a similarly encoded series from AMS on http://www.ams.org.

i'm not sure but it seems that probably LH LCY-encoded fonts were the
first (WVCY fonts are dated 1995, but LH fonts were available at
1992--1993).

 LS> 3) Are WNCY and WN fonts metrically idantical where they both
 LS> exist?

i htink that no. there are a lot of small differences in design of
glyphs between AMS WNCY fonts and LH fonts, and thus differences in
metrics.

 LS> 4) The WNCY and the BaKoMa CMCY series: are these still the only
 LS> CM compatible cyrillic fonts in Type 1 format?

it seems that yes.

	Best regards, -- Vladimir.