http://sarovar.org/download.php/1129/pdftex-1.40.0-rc3.tar.bz2 http://sarovar.org/download.php/1130/pdftex-1.40.0-rc2-rc3.diff.gz We are getting nearer... ----------------------------------------------------- pdfTeX 3.141592-1.40.0-rc3 was released on 2006-12-20 ----------------------------------------------------- - changes from rc2: - map file handling: - in usual cases the behaviour is the same like in previous version. So if a font file is given with '<' or '<<', things should work without problems. - changes in odd cases: - no font file --> no font descriptor - font file given but not included --> will be treated like font file missing + a warning - minimize the distinction between standard fonts and other type1 fonts: the *only* place this makes a difference is that if a font file is missing (and the font is used), a warning will be generated for normal fonts but not for standard fonts
"Martin" == Martin Schröder
writes:
- minimize the distinction between standard fonts and other type1 fonts: the *only* place this makes a difference is that if a font file is missing (and the font is used), a warning will be generated for normal fonts but not for standard fonts
It would be helpful to have a definition for: * standard fonts * normal fonts * other Type1 fonts Cheers, Reinhard -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reinhard Kotucha Phone: +49-511-4592165 Marschnerstr. 25 D-30167 Hannover mailto:reinhard.kotucha@web.de ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
"Martin" == Martin Schröder
writes: - minimize the distinction between standard fonts and other type1 fonts: the *only* place this makes a difference is that if a font file is missing (and the font is used), a warning will be generated for normal fonts but not for standard fonts
It would be helpful to have a definition for:
* standard fonts
the 14 fonts listed in the PDF Reference that must be built into any decent PDF viewer, so it's not mandatory to embed them into PDF files. These are Times-Roman, Helvetica, Courier, ZapfDingbats...
* normal fonts
any font is a normal font until you come to know it.
* other Type1 fonts
not one of the 14 standard fonts. Regards, Hartmut
Hartmut Henkel
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
It would be helpful to have a definition for:
* standard fonts
the 14 fonts listed in the PDF Reference that must be built into any decent PDF viewer, so it's not mandatory to embed them into PDF files. These are Times-Roman, Helvetica, Courier, ZapfDingbats...
unless we declare adobe reader no longer "decent", this definition doesn't work any more -- adobe only has minion and myriad in the distribution (plus, i think, courier). and no-one nowadays imagines you can get away without embedding except in the context of the most restricted distributions, or where the precise shape of the glyphs isn't important. robin
"Hartmut" == Hartmut Henkel
writes: "Robin" == Robin Fairbairns writes:
Hartmut> the 14 fonts listed in the PDF Reference that must be built
Hartmut> into any decent PDF viewer, so it's not mandatory to embed
Hartmut> them into PDF files. These are Times-Roman, Helvetica,
Hartmut> Courier, ZapfDingbats [and Symbol].
Robin> unless we declare adobe reader no longer "decent", this
Robin> definition doesn't work any more -- adobe only has minion and
Robin> myriad in the distribution (plus, i think, courier).
The current version (as installed on my laptop :) has the otf version
of Courier (called CourierStd, as is typical of Adobe's otf fonts), an
otf font called AdobePiStd which contains all of the glyphs in Zapf
Dingbats, and type1 versions of Symbol, AdobeSansMM and AdobeSerifMM
(in addition to the text cuts of MinionPro and MyriadPro).
They have always included the ability to emulate non-embedded fonts
with those two multiple master fonts. The binary also has explicit
knowledge of some sort (found by strings|grep) of these font names:
,----
| Arial Arial,Bold Arial,BoldItalic Arial,Italic Arial-Bold
| Arial-BoldItalic Arial-BoldItalicMT Arial-BoldMT Arial-Italic
| Arial-ItalicMT ArialMT /Helvetica /Helvetica-Bold
| /Helvetica-BoldOblique /Helvetica-Oblique Helvetica Helvetica,Bold
| Helvetica,BoldItalic Helvetica,Italic Helvetica-Bold
| Helvetica-BoldItalic Helvetica-BoldOblique Helvetica-Italic
| Helvetica-Oblique
|
| /Times-Bold /Times-BoldItalic /Times-Italic /Times-Roman Times-Bold
| Times-BoldItalic Times-Italic Times-Roman TimesNewRoman
| TimesNewRoman,Bold TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic TimesNewRoman,Italic
| TimesNewRoman-Bold TimesNewRoman-BoldItalic TimesNewRoman-Italic
| TimesNewRomanBold TimesNewRomanPS TimesNewRomanPS-Bold
| TimesNewRomanPS-BoldItalic TimesNewRomanPS-BoldItalicMT
| TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT TimesNewRomanPS-Italic
| TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT TimesNewRomanPSMT
`----
Even though it does not include any actual fonts named Times,
TimesNewRoman, Helvetica or Arial it does know the fonts, can
emulate them with its MM fonts, and can ouput postscript which
calls the fonts by name w/o having to embed them (relying of
course on the PS interpreters' ability to render said fonts).
That does seem sufficient to claim that it has those fonts (or
their functional equivilent, just like xpdf/poppler/gs).
-JimC (or Dev's_Advo, if you prefer :)
--
James Cloos
On 12/21/06, James Cloos
"Hartmut" == Hartmut Henkel
writes: "Robin" == Robin Fairbairns writes: Hartmut> the 14 fonts listed in the PDF Reference that must be built Hartmut> into any decent PDF viewer, so it's not mandatory to embed Hartmut> them into PDF files. These are Times-Roman, Helvetica, Hartmut> Courier, ZapfDingbats [and Symbol].
Robin> unless we declare adobe reader no longer "decent", this Robin> definition doesn't work any more -- adobe only has minion and Robin> myriad in the distribution (plus, i think, courier).
[...] Even though it does not include any actual fonts named Times, TimesNewRoman, Helvetica or Arial it does know the fonts, can emulate them with its MM fonts, and can ouput postscript which calls the fonts by name w/o having to embed them (relying of course on the PS interpreters' ability to render said fonts).
That does seem sufficient to claim that it has those fonts (or their functional equivilent, just like xpdf/poppler/gs).
There are examples where the substitutions made by the various viewers
end up looking quite different. These days a well-travelled route to
confusion is to send your colleague a document created with a Windows
GUI tool that uses Arial-Italic when the author requests
Helvetica-Italic. Your colleague opens the file on her linux machine,
and sees the file rendered using the URW clone of Helvetica-Oblique.
In Arial-Italic, the vertical bar is upright, so the user sees no
reason to switch to normal "Helvetica" for the vertical bar symbol (on
linux the user would probably do this to see upright verticals), but
the URW clone has slanted verticals, so y=x|b renders more like y=x/b.
One of the problems with all the software being so helpful by
substituting for the Laserwiriter 35 fonts is that you no longer know
what was used when a document was created. People tell me "I always
use Helvetica" when they haven't been near a system that contains
a real Helvetica font.
--
George N. White III
participants (6)
-
gnwiii@gmail.com
-
Hartmut Henkel
-
James Cloos
-
Martin Schröder
-
Reinhard Kotucha
-
Robin Fairbairns