I think we've strayed from the initial subject.  I've got no objection
to Mozilla using Type 42 CIDFonts, Type 100 halftones, Type 4 images
and an embedded APL interpreter.  Whatever.

As long as they don't use Xprint.

JC> their choice to use Type 42 CIDFonts

JS> Given that truetype fonts are much easier to come by than genuine
JS> CID-keyed fonts

It's funny how we come to opposite conclusions from the very same
facts.  Because TTFs are plenty, one needs to support them well on all
printers.  Thus, one should not require the support for Type 42

But I really have no problem with that.  Font format conversion can
always be added at a later stage.

JS> I also thought that's the case. However, Brian Stell changed the
JS> plan (see http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144663. )
JS> and he's now gonna use type 8 (neither type 11=what you're calling
JS> type42 CIDFont = CIDFont type2 nor type 42).

Yes, the terminology is confusing.  To be pedantic, I was speaking of
serialised CIDFont resources with a CIDFontType of 2 and a FontType
of 11, which happens to contain Type 42 charstrings.

JS> What's type 8 font, btw?

No idea.  I can't find them either in either PLRM 3 or the 3012

Are you sure you're not thinking of Type 0 fonts (composite fonts)
with a FMapType of 8, which is what Adobe used in the Japanese market
before they came up with CIDFonts?  These will work on all level 2
devices (possibly requiring that a proprietary Adobe procset be
downloaded) and on Japanese level 1 devices.

In my humble opinion, Type 0 fonts are a hack for doing in the PS
interpreter something that really ought to be done in the host (font

But then, Mozilla is written in C++, and it may be simpler to
implement font switching in PostScript ;-)

JS> I also thought that you prefer to leave as much as possible for PS
JS> printers to take care of.

There's a compromise to make between how much information you want to
give the PS interpreter and how portable you want to be.  I think that
using Type 42 CIDFonts (whatever you may think of my terminology) with
an option to use Type 1 base fonts is the sweet spot.

>> Conversion to Type 1 fonts works everywhere, gives excellent results,
>> and the code is readily available (ttftpt1).

JS>    Does this conversion code also work for large CJK ttf fonts(with more
JS> than 256 glyphs)? Or, does it also support conversion to composite
JS> font(OCF?)?

Yes.  Yes.

Although with very large fonts you may run out of memory on very old
PS devices if you're not careful.

Fonts mailing list

Reply via email to