Follow-up Comment #9, bug #67971 (group groff):

At 2026-01-31T16:43:48-0500, Deri James wrote:
> Follow-up Comment #8, bug #67971 (group groff):
>
> This is not true. I don't know how to support an abstract font

Yes you do, if you support `.ft R`, `.ft B`, `.ft I`, and `.ft BI`.

Yes, the formatter generates a "resolved font name" from these before
putting anything on _grout_, but I'm not seeing an essential difference
here.  The resolved font names still need to have corresponding font
description files, and multiple glyphs within a font description might
have identical metrics.  (I don't see why declaring thus with
`charset-range` versus `charset` should make any difference to the
output driver.)

For example, consider the highly exotic Courier bold.


$ grep '600,572' font/devps/CB
aq     600,572  2       8       quotesingle     --      0027
!      600,572,12       2       33      exclam  --      0021
"      600,572  2       34      quotedbl        --      0022
'      600,572  2       39      quoteright      --      2019
A      600,572  2       65      A       --      0041
B      600,572  2       66      B       --      0042
D      600,572  2       68      D       --      0044
E      600,572  2       69      E       --      0045
F      600,572  2       70      F       --      0046
H      600,572  2       72      H       --      0048
I      600,572  2       73      I       --      0049
J      600,572,12       2       74      J       --      004A
K      600,572  2       75      K       --      004B
L      600,572  2       76      L       --      004C
M      600,572,0,12     2       77      M       --      004D
N      600,572,0,5      2       78      N       --      004E
P      600,572  2       80      P       --      0050
R      600,572  2       82      R       --      0052
T      600,572  2       84      T       --      0054
U      600,572,12       2       85      U       --      0055
V      600,572,0,1,1    2       86      V       --      0056
W      600,572,0,6,2    2       87      W       --      0057
X      600,572  2       88      X       --      0058
Y      600,572  2       89      Y       --      0059
Z      600,572  2       90      Z       --      005A
`      600,572  2       96      quoteleft       --      2018
dg     600,572,44       2       135     dagger  --      2020
dd     600,572,42       2       136     daggerdbl       --      2021
lq     600,572  2       153     quotedblleft    --      201C
rq     600,572  2       154     quotedblright   --      201D
OE     600,572,0,8      2       158     OE      --      0152
/L     600,572  2       159     Lslash  --      0141
AE     600,572  2       198     AE      --      00C6
-D     600,572  2       208     Eth     --      00D0
TP     600,572  2       222     Thorn   --      00DE


> and I have been asking how you tested abstract fonts with pdf?

I didn't!  I assumed it would work because _gropdf_ is a kind of
successor to _grops_, like their corresponding standards, and, thanks to
your effort, _gropdf_ goes out of its way to support "ps"-specific
device extension commands.

If it's broken, it's broken.  My commitment to the release "schedule" is
such that I'm unwilling to undertake its repair to make "1.24.0 final".

And I don't see anyone else doing so.

> That's a bit different from being unmwilling. So please can you give
> me instruction how you got a successful test and don't do this
> release, once I get it to work I will be happy, at the moment I don't
> think it can work but I could be wrong.

I can only direct you to TANAKA Takuji's ticket, bug #62830, and suggest
that you obtain the fonts he says he used, and set them up for use with
_gropdf_ as you would any other fonts.

I note with annoyance at myself that I don't have them in my
"groff/ATTIC" directory, which contains over 4,000 files.  The only PFA
or PFB font I see is this, and no TTF or OTF fonts.


ATTIC/BrushScriptX-Italic.pfa


That font, readers of the _grops_(1) and _gropdf_(1) man pages might
recognize.



    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?67971>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to