Re: MKIV, fonts, confusion

[Taco Hoekwater <taco@elvenkind.com>]

luigi scarso wrote:
>     > So I don't understand how OO "transform" this opentype in a Type1 ,
> 
>     I guess that that is not hard when a document uses no more than 256
>     glyphs from the font. 
> 
> 
> yes, a sort of creation of font encodings at fly for more than 256
> glyphs -- but why ?

Maybe to get around that bug^H^H^Hfeature in AR8 and AR9 that
causes distress in mkiv, but more likely is that they believed
the reencoding to Type1c was easier to handle than dealing with
CID fonts.

> Also, does it fix em size, given that this appears to be the root of the
> problem ?

No, it fixes nothing. It just works around the issue. The cause of
the problem is that AR8 and AR9 *require* Type0 fonts to have 1000
units/em, otherwise the glyph drawing routine outputs an incorrectly
scaled object. There is no such limitation for Type1C fonts, and
that is why it works ok there (at least for now, who knows what AR10
will bring ...)

Best wishes,
Taco
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________