Talk:LaTeX/Fonts

Font convert
"MikTeX users can use this approach to do that." Asciipott (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is this up to date?
 * 2) The "encoding vector file" linked to in the article, T1-WGL4.enc, relate to a 404.


 * The T1-WGL4.enc seems to be back online. --Ambrevar (discuss • contribs) 09:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is changing fonts so hard in LaTeX?
Why is it so hard to change fonts in LaTeX? In just about most other word processing or markup out there, the syntax for changing fonts is easy.

Science writer (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Details have been added on LaTeX' philosophy of font usage. The tutorial on font change is much more progressive and clear. --Ambrevar (discuss • contribs) 09:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Issues to consider
One of the main issues to consider here is how you want the document to look at the end. What format is it going to take? Is it to be printed, or read on line? Is it going into a Kindle, an iPad or desktop? Paper based reading materials need to be in a serif font, to assist in the reading. The serif was designed to assist the eye to follow in a line, not for good looks. The sans-serif font is supposed to be a better font to read on-line. Apparently this is all about how we read things. I would suggest some discussion here about these kinds of things, placing the instructions into some sort of framework that can be built upon by the User. Planning such things at the start is better than just doing it one way all the time - which usually means using the default settings. For more information the Dark Side has an interesting article here called The Science of Word Recognition that is detailed and very interesting. --Henry Tallboys (discuss • contribs) 23:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Table of point sizes
Does it have any connection to reality? Most of the numbers look wrong, some look very wrong.
 * See below. --Ambrevar (discuss • contribs) 09:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

How to interpret the table?
What data is it that is written in the table? The only explanation you get for the table is the table text, "Absolute Point Sizes, [10pt] being default". So are the numbers the font sizes? If so, why do I get the number 17.28 when writing ? That number is not even in the table at the row for LARGE. —Kri (discuss • contribs) 00:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know where this table comes from. It probably needs a big update. --Ambrevar (discuss • contribs) 09:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Font table
My name is Mark. I fixed the font table yesterday. I'm too lazy to create an account though, so I can't sign properly. I don't if I'm supposed to create a new section in the discussion page or not, so I'm just writing it here. Better than nothing, maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.19.143 (discuss • contribs) 09:35, 1 July 2015

Very misleading
This is the first topic I've looked at in the book and I've only read the introduction, but it is really misleading. If MetaFont produced such terrible results, do you really think Knuth would have written it? Bitmap fonts print fine because they are produced at the required size. The issue is that they are not scalable once produced, so zooming them is problematic. Even so, they look fine at the intended size except in certain viewers which don't handle them well, most notably acroread.

It makes no sense to suggest that opentype and truetype are preferred because MetaFont is too complex. This is just rubbish: have you examined an opentype font in any detail? It is far more complex than a MetaFont by far.

The introduction also erroneously suggests that fonts are produced the first time they are used. While this is true for MetaFont, it is not true for any others, including type1. Moreover, it happens more often for MetaFont fonts because they must be produced each time a size is used for the first time. But to suggest this causes slow compilation is also rubbish. It is the newer engines, which use opentype and truetype fonts, which have the slowest compilation speeds - not just the first time, but every time. The first time will be slower with LuaTeX, but not just the first time - any time it is necessary to re-catalogue the available fonts. This isn't affected typically by the first use of a font, but whether the fonts available have changed or might have changed.

Note that for standard TeX, it is irrelevant whether a font is bitmap or not at compilation because it is only using the TFMs anyway in compiling to DVI.

I don't know if this is helpful. Personally, I think going into all this at all is unlikely to be helpful to beginners looking to use Times New Roman in their documents. But if you must say it, you need to do so on the basis of a better understanding of the topic.--62.255.73.246
 * There is currently a lot of rubbish that accumulated over the last years. I just read through the introduction and some points are just badly worded, but there is nothing really wrong with the points made. Nowhere is it said, that MetaFont is bad. Nowhere is suggested to use luatex or xetex, they are simply mentioned (and have a right to be). I agree with the compilation time, but this again is bad wording and not rubbish. The point is just not very clear.
 * Most parts of that wikibook have been written by people without a deeper knowledge of LaTeX and how it works. Ok, doesn't matter, other people have written stuff. If that stuff is of bad quality and copied here, bad quality is just replicated and distributed. Since you seem to have a certain understanding of LaTeX and friends, i would be very happy to see you fixing some stuff. Rewriting stuff. Ordering stuff. Helping out. It will be a much better use of your time than complaining about bad quality. And i would have invested 2 minutes reading through the changes thinking: "Ah, a good edit, nice, thanks" instead of using five minutes writing that answer. ;-)


 * So, improving the quality is better than complaining. Thanks.--Johannes Bo (discuss • contribs) 05:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps 'rubbish' seems overly scathing. But I insist that those points are simply wrong: MetaFont fonts do not print poorly and they are not more complex than modern font types, so their complexity cannot be responsible for slower compilation and XeTeX/LuaTeX are, in any case, slower than either TeX or pdfTeX. As I say, personally, I wouldn't try to introduce all this in the introductory paragraph to a topic anyway, so I would not be inclined to correct this paragraph but to substitute something more accessible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.73.246 (discuss • contribs) 12:19, 27 August 2016


 * --DavidCary (discuss • contribs) 21:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Modernization
I've submitted a major rewrite. This was done bit by bit in my sandbox, see its history for a full explanation of all changes. But, to summarize:


 * Move emphasis, formatting, and size change commands to the top of the article and custom font selection to the bottom. (The former are used much more often than the latter.)
 * Remove a discussion of \fontencoding, \fontfamily, etc., as all of these effects can be done with the formatting switches above without having to remember the various codes (l, m, b, bx, sc, etc.)
 * Move links discussing converting fonts for legacy TeX encoding to the section about legacy TeX encoding.
 * Remove list of "available LaTeX fonts". These don't all seem available on modern TeXlive distros, and at any rate, can be found in the previously-mentioned links. No need to lengthen the chapter by going through them here.

Once this lands (with appropriate feedback), I hope to:
 * Discuss quality, free typefaces, such as the TeX Gyre series from GUST (the same foundry that produced Latin Modern).
 * Explain how different font files from the same family (including LM!) can be hooked up to fontspec using its various arguments.
 * Possibly discuss optical weights and other subtle font features at greater length.

As always, feedback is appreciated.

Mkline (discuss • contribs) 03:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty fine to me. A small thing though, what you describe are LaTeX switches and they are perfectly fine to use. TeX switches are   etc., which are indeed not to be used in LaTeX documents. If you amend that part, i am happy to accept the revisioin. --Johannes Bo (discuss • contribs) 17:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Fixed - thanks! Mkline (discuss • contribs) 21:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I accepted the revision, but it was quite hard to follow. A huge chunk gets deleted, comes back much later, and gets deleted again with the next edit. Can you do a little bit more stuff in a sandbox and push the final result? The system might treat that as cheating. --Johannes Bo (discuss • contribs) 08:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure I follow - my rewrite has been pushed (see here, checked by Atcovi). What did you mean by the system "treat[ing] that as cheating"? - Mkline (discuss • contribs) 03:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a rank system based on edits. You have to make 100 edits to be a reviewer for example. --Johannes Bo (discuss • contribs) 06:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted. FWIW, I've been given autoreview (also by Atcovi). - Mkline (discuss • contribs) 07:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)