[NTG-pdftex] [ pdftex-Bugs-304 ] Names of expanded fonts not in log output

noreply at sarovar.org noreply at sarovar.org
Mon Oct 23 12:23:57 CEST 2006


Bugs item #304, was opened at 2005-03-02 17:25
You can respond by visiting: 
http://sarovar.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=493&aid=304&group_id=106

Category: Fonts
Group: v1.21a
Status: Open
Resolution: Accepted
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Robert (schlcht)
Assigned to: Hartmut Henkel (hhenkel)
Summary: Names of expanded fonts not in log output

Initial Comment:
When using font expansion, the log output will not
contain the names of the expanded fonts but the null
character instead (resp. ^^@).

%-------------------------------------
\pdfadjustspacing=2
\pdffontexpand\font 20 20 5 autoexpand
\tracingoutput=1
test

\parfillskip 0pt
test
\bye
%-------------------------------------

Regards,
Robert.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: The Thanh Han (hanthethanh)
Date: 2006-10-23 10:23

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=710

Here is an attempt to fix this problem (reversed patch
attached).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Robert (schlcht)
Date: 2006-09-03 17:30

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=2217

I've attached an example using Kepler MM (tfm+pfb included,
please delete after testing).

MM fonts are probably the only case where one would not want
to use the autoexpand feature.

At first sight, saying "autoexpand" or not doesn't seem to
make a difference, since pdftex will always prefer existing
expanded fonts (pfb) over autoexpanding them, anyway.
However, there are some slight differences in the pdf. This
is probably because the provided tfm file is different from
the metrics that pdf calculates itself in the case of
autoexpand. That is, autoexpand may result in a mismatch
between the provided pfb and the calculated tfm, is that
correct?


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Hartmut Henkel (hhenkel)
Date: 2006-09-01 19:02

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=929

currently i even can't get a test file do expansion at all
without "autoexpand". E. g. Robert's example above, without
"autoexpand", doesn't use expanded fonts. Maybe that's the
reason for the missing expand parameter in the log? Can
anybody provide a test file for this case?

Regards, Hartmut

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Martin Schröder (oneiros)
Date: 2006-09-01 10:47

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=421

Is this really a problem, i.e. is there a reason _not_ to
use the autoexpand feature in new documents?

Hartmut, did you look into this bug?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Robert (schlcht)
Date: 2005-10-15 22:24

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=2217

If the font is not autoexpand'ed, its name will still not be
written to the log file.

(pdftex 1.30.3; same test file, without "autoexpand")

Regards,
Robert.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Martin Schröder (oneiros)
Date: 2005-05-12 15:05

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=421

This has been fixed in 1.30.0

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Hartmut Henkel (hhenkel)
Date: 2005-03-30 20:16

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=929

This patch is based of Thanh's change file showfont.ch,
which he gave me during EuroTeX2005 (it's also included,
renamed here to showfont-thanh.ch). Use showfont.ch for the
patch.

There is now a new integer variable \pdftracingfonts. It is
zero by default, then we get a log like this (see
robert050302.log):

...\tenrm t

...\tenrm (+20) e

Without font expansion, this default should be compatible
with TeX's original log output.

If \pdftracingfonts is set to 1 (or greater), we get a more
verbose log (see tst-304.log):

...\xivtt (cmtt10 at 14.0pt) t

.\xivtt (cmtt10+20 at 14.0pt) e

Seems to work with change file showfont.ch coming directly
after after hz.ch.

Patch only roughly tested with pdfetex, likely to give
problems with pdfxtex, as the variable numbering might
differ. Log format to be agreed upon...

Regards, Hartmut


----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
http://sarovar.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=493&aid=304&group_id=106


More information about the ntg-pdftex mailing list