From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/13795 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: George White Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:09 -0300 (ADT) Sender: ntg-context-admin@ntg.nl Message-ID: Reply-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1065807941 31807 80.91.224.253 (10 Oct 2003 17:45:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:45:41 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-admin@ntg.nl Fri Oct 10 19:45:39 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from ref.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.13] helo=ref.ntg.nl) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1A81Kd-0006dP-00 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:45:39 +0200 Original-Received: from ref.ntg.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ref.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id D604C10B1F; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:45:36 +0200 (MEST) Original-Received: from halifax.chebucto.ns.ca (chebucto.ns.Ca [192.75.95.75]) by ref.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4323510AFC for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:38:25 +0200 (MEST) Original-Received: (from localhost user: 'aa056' uid#15055 fake: STDIN (aa056@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca)) by halifax.chebucto.ns.ca id ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:09 -0300 Original-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl Errors-To: ntg-context-admin@ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:13795 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:13795 On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Patrick Gundlach wrote: > [...] > According to to the statements from Walter Schmidt, a TeX font expert > (perhaps I should say *the* TeX font expert?) in > http://tug.daimi.au.dk/archives/tex-fonts/msg01328.html > > \quote{% .... > Note, however, that embedding of URW's fonts, while using the > (PSNFSS) Adobe Base35 metrics, will _not_ lead to any bugs! > The character metrics are matching! Differences in the > "character bounding boxes" are irrelevant for the advance widths! > The only drawback is, that you cannot access those glyphs that > are in the URW fonts, but not in the Adobe fonts. Indeed, this > could be overcome by providing particular metrics and VFs for > the URW fonts -- see below. } Hans has demonstated that even the Adobe fonts don't have the same metrics. It should also be noted that in practice, if you don't embed fonts, you will often get font substitutions in the PS rasterizer (e.g., ghostscript defaults will use URW fonts where the file requests a Base35 font, current acrobat reader will use Arial where the file requests Helvetica, some printers with clone interpreters (many recent HP models) use "clone" fonts. There are several versions of the URW fonts in use now: two ghostscript versions, and a number of versions with additional glyphs distributed with linux (and I am told that the software used to create the recent versions may have tampered with the metrics for glyphs that were not changed). If you embed the URW fonts using the original URW names it is clear which fonts are to be used. This discourages people from "optimizing" your files by stripping out the fonts. For archival EPS figures it makes sense to go further and replace fonts with outline paths. In this way the figures should remain useful even after the fonts are no longer supported by the available rasterizers. -- George White 189 Parklea Dr., Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia B3Z 2G6