From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/13797 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Patrick Gundlach Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:21:36 +0200 Organization: privat Sender: ntg-context-admin@ntg.nl Message-ID: References: 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 1065817830 18448 80.91.224.253 (10 Oct 2003 20:30:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:30:30 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-admin@ntg.nl Fri Oct 10 22:30:28 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 1A83u8-0008Hz-00 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:30:28 +0200 Original-Received: from ref.ntg.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ref.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9435810B1F; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:30:25 +0200 (MEST) Original-Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.187]) by ref.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id E410010AFC for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:23:04 +0200 (MEST) Original-Received: from [212.227.126.206] (helo=mrelayng.kundenserver.de) by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1A83mx-0003zX-00 for ntg-context@ntg.nl; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:23:03 +0200 Original-Received: from [62.72.92.76] (helo=levana) by mrelayng.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1A83mw-0003os-00 for ntg-context@ntg.nl; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:23:02 +0200 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.2] (helo=schnee.local) by levana with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1A83lM-0000Sq-00 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:21:24 +0200 Original-Received: from schnee.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by schnee.local (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h9AKLb0v004432 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:21:37 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: (from pg@localhost) by schnee.local (8.12.9/8.12.2/Submit) id h9AKLbLG004431; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:21:37 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: schnee.local: pg set sender to patrick@gundla.ch using -f Original-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Lieblings-Musik: the_capricorns In-Reply-To: (George White's message of "Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:38:09 -0300 (ADT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (darwin) 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:13797 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:13797 Hi, George White writes: > Hans has demonstated that even the Adobe fonts don't have the same > metrics. Which fonts, which characters and which metrics. Please be more specific, since it might not even touch the way TeX handles fonts. I am not sure what is taken to create the tfms, but I think it is the advance width (WX) of each glyph. Who cares about the bb? > It should also be noted that in practice, if you don't embed fonts, I am not discussing about embedding. That is a totally different topic (not really totally different...) > 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. I agree that fonts should be embedded. > 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 right, but there is only one version of the urw fonts shipped with TeX. And there are only one version of tfms shipped with TeX: the psnfss ones. > (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). this is very vague. > 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. Right. Fonts refererenced by eps files can cause serious headaches. > In this way the figures should remain useful even after the fonts > are no longer supported by the available rasterizers. 100% agree. But what does it mean for the font metrics? Patrick -- You are your own rainbow!