At 09:22 AM 1/31/01 -0500, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
>At 10:00 AM +0000 1/31/01, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
>>this should be the business of the PS interpreter, e.g., ghostscript.
>
> Depends on what you plan to do with the PS. If you are ONLY
>planning on printing it on the same machine that you are typing on,
>AND you are NOT using a native PS printer - then it would be fine.
>BUT if you are sending the PS directly to a PS printer, then it would
>need the font data in the PS document in order to correctly render
>the fonts. OR if you intend to use the PS file on another computer
>with a potentially different font set. OR if you plan to convert the
>PS to PDF.
Yep. You could ask Shaw or Jeff, but IIRC, this kind of portability was the
rationale for always including font data in the resulting PS output.
Paul
