Why the alternate version of the font definitions that's commented out? I think that should be deleted, or turned into an "alternately, use this" section, but which one? --[[User:Brooks|Brooks]]
: Both font groups are part of the same cm-extra distribution, but the cmbtt{8,9,10} fonts are both newer and there are there 3 instead of 1. Users will normally have both, or none, so I propose to use the cmbttXX ones and delete the other set from the example. --[[User:Taco|Taco]]
Both font groups are part :: Sounds good to me. I added a small note to point out the change from the LaTeX example, so as to avoid any possibility of confusing people (and also in case they retype the same cmcommands rather than doing them with cut-extra distribution, but and-paste). --[[User:Brooks|Brooks]] ---- Why doesn't the following context block work in the cmbttWiki? Can this be fixed? <context>\definebodyfont [12pt] [tt] [bf=cmttb10 at 12pt]\definebodyfont [11pt] [tt] [bf=cmttb10 at 11pt]\definebodyfont [10pt] [tt] [bf=cmttb10]\definebodyfont [9pt] [tt] [bf=cmttb10 at 9pt]\definebodyfont [8pt] [tt] [bf=cmttb10 at 8pt] \starttext{8,9,10\tt Normal and \bf bold Typewriter.} fonts are both newer \stoptext</context> This comes from:<texcode>\definebodyfont [12pt] [tt] [bf=cmttb10 at 12pt]\definebodyfont [11pt] [tt] [bf=cmttb10 at 11pt]\definebodyfont [10pt] [tt] [bf=cmttb10]\definebodyfont [9pt] [tt] [bf=cmttb10 at 9pt]\definebodyfont [8pt] [tt] [bf=cmttb10 at 8pt] \starttext{\tt Normal and there are there 3 instead of 1\bf bold Typewriter. Users will normally have both}\stoptext</texcode> --[[User:Brooks|Brooks]] 01:25, or none, so 4 Sep 2005 (UTC) : Apart from the fact that I propose to know approximately nothing about fonts: isn't the example slightly outdated? Shouldn't it use lm fonts instead? And again - there is no "lmttb" font, although there are some examples of bold typewriter fonts in the cmbttXX ones and delete the other set from the examplelm documentation.--[[User:TacoMojca Miklavec|TacoMojca]]01:59, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)