Re: [NTG-context] Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat
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
Hi,
George White
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!
participants (2)
-
George White -
Patrick Gundlach