[NTG-pdftex] still probelms with inclusion

Hans Hagen pragma@wxs.nl
Fri, 14 May 2004 11:13:24 +0200


At 09:27 14/05/2004, The Thanh Han wrote:

>can you clarify it a bit more? I don't understand what you want to do
>here. When you talk about eg Palatino-Roman, we suppose you have
>somewhere on your disk a fontfile with that FontName entry inside the
>font. If you have several entries with the same FontName but different
>fontfile, I consider it a fatal error that should be fixed in the map
>files.

Imagine that you processed a file in 2001 using a certain font setup (could 
be a pdftex file, but also one produced by GS or whatever) and wants to 
include a page from that  file in a document in 2004. How can you be sure 
that in spite of the name, the font is exactly teh same? It could be an 
update, or a subset, or the new one could have more glyphs (euros added for 
instance). I just found out that for obscure reasons the urw paths became 
urw35vf and users who copy trees over old trees may have ended up with 
duplicates (old ones are found then due to alphabetical searching) etc etc. 
it's a mess out there and it's not going to improve soon, so pdftex should 
be as clever as possible. It's better have too many fonts in a file 
(duplicates) then to get the wrong ones. So the question is, what to check 
for and when to ignore. Keep in mind that people get files from everywhere 
(i'm dealing with files from all kind of applications and esp those urw 
files are all over the place and we cannot know how/what people changed; 
btw, this is one reason why i'm glad that fonts are often copyrighted).

If you provide this \pdfoptionsignorefontname or maybe 
\pdfoptionsfontmethod or whatever, at least we have some control, else i 
have to ship a double set of map files (i just wrote a stripper) for the 
sake of robust inclusion. I have to make a decision because i don't want to 
keep messing aroudn with the distribution (tex live deadlines and so).

Hans