Re: wish for LyX 1.2 and pdf
I carefully read all the threads about pdf, acroread, fonts and so on. I don't think that disabling bitmap font support is the best solution. However I also think that: What does an "average-stupid" user as I am ask for? A decent pdf file from my thesis. And It is very likely that my "average-stupid" professor will open the pdf document with Acroread. So for my basical need LyX should give me a working, practical and quick solution without any interaction, strange questions and LaTeX commands: that is, far-from-optimised but useful pdf, html, rtf documents from my lyx thesis. A LyX-LaTeX power user asks for optimisation: no problem! LyX offers this already, I suppose. Thank you, Emanuele Gissi
Re: wish for LyX 1.2
> > Bitmap fontes created for the resoluton and size that they are view at > > are better than a scaled outline font. > > I suppose you mean the bitmap fonts created by dvips (?) for postscript > files. In that case, you are not quite right, because they _are_ outline > fonts, they are just already rasterized. The question is, whether the > conversion from vector form to rasterized (bitmap) form should be done by > document publisher (dvips) or the reader (gv/acroread/ps printer). And > since outline fonts seem to actually work faster than pre-rasterized > fonts, it looks definitely like the fonts should be rasterized by the > reader, since only he may know the resolution of the output device. > > It actually makes some sense that LyX would make TeX and dvips to produce > Postscript/PDF files with outline fonts when possible, by default, since > Postcript/PDF is more common. Thank you for these clear words. Is this now consensus? > How many PDF files you have seen on the web lately? > How many DVI files? > > How many Postscript printers have you seen? > How many DVI printers? That's it :-) regards, Marcus Beyer http://www.Stormlight.de/lyx_de.html
Re: wish for LyX 1.2
Marcus Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | Should the user know about the resolution of the devices? | > | Should the user "compile" his document anew, | > | when he wants to use another printer? | > | > Yes, to get _best_ reuslts. | | Don't you get always best results with outline fonts? No, the absolutely best results is with a font that has been designed for the size it is bein used at. | > Bitmap fontes created for the resoluton and size that they are view at | > are better than a scaled outline font. | | Why? Aren't the bitmap fonts also "scaled" when created? they can be and if they are the result is not often very good. Lgb
Re: wish for LyX 1.2
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Jean-Pierre.Chretien wrote: > For screen consultation, latex2html or similar is better IMHO , PDF > is rather useful for printing (where the font rendering is OK). I have to assert that html currently is not very useful. HTML is a great description language, but there is awful lack of useful HTML readers. Please mention me _one_ HTML viewer, that: - Is reasonably fast - Is free software - Does antialiased display - Is not ridiculously big (say less than 10 MB) - Is stable - Can do vectorized images (which HTML viewers support antialiased EPS/PDF images?) - Can do well math stuff (antialiased, of course) These are only the first mandatary things from _good_ html viewer that comes to my mind, there are more important features. And AFAIK, no such things exists yet (althought some late developments in XFree and Konqueror seem promising, but its still experimental stuff).
Re: wish for LyX 1.2
I feel this is a bit stupid discussion, but I hope you don't get offended even if I disagree :-) On 23 Jan 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Bitmap fontes created for the resoluton and size that they are view at > are better than a scaled outline font. I suppose you mean the bitmap fonts created by dvips (?) for postscript files. In that case, you are not quite right, because they _are_ outline fonts, they are just already rasterized. The question is, whether the conversion from vector form to rasterized (bitmap) form should be done by document publisher (dvips) or the reader (gv/acroread/ps printer). And since outline fonts seem to actually work faster than pre-rasterized fonts, it looks definitely like the fonts should be rasterized by the reader, since only he may know the resolution of the output device. > So all this depends on _what_ you are going to use the document for, > hardcopy or screen viewing. Hopefully spreading the document freely--everyone may either print or view it, and it can not be known in advance. It actually makes some sense that LyX would make TeX and dvips to produce Postscript/PDF files with outline fonts when possible, by default, since Postcript/PDF is more common. How many PDF files you have seen on the web lately? How many DVI files? How many Postscript printers have you seen? How many DVI printers?
Re: wish for LyX 1.2
>>From: Marcus Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:47:02 +0100 >>Cc: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul E Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Re: wish for LyX 1.2 >> >> >>> Do you mean the editing (in LyX window) fonts >>> or the resulting document file fonts? >> >>The latter. I am sorry for being unprecise here! So anew: >> >>My wish for LyX 1.2: >>Please remove the support for bitmap fonts in target documents! >> >>juh> Its a joke, isn't it? >> >>Not at all. But it's fun (discussing about it) :-) >> >>> What comes to document file fonts, its mainly not up to LyX, since it is >>> TeX that does the typesetting. And in fact, _all_ fonts in TeX are >>> scalable "outline" fonts. The problem is not that, but the fact that TeX >>> fonts are difficult to convert into PostScript/PDF fonts (althought work >>> is done here, maybe it is possible nowadays?). >> >>Isn't it LyX who tells TeX & friends what to do? >>IMHO the easiest solution would be: >>Let the user choose between "pslatex" and "ae,aecompl" etc. >> >>> > 1. Almost every new LyX user has to make the "ugly-fonts-experience". >>> >>> Not really, just don't use Acroread which is proprietary software anyway >>> and shouldn't be used. Acroread isn't installed by default anyway on most >>> Linux distributions, but gv is (which displays bitmap fonts just fine). >> >>I use Acroread instead of gv, because: >>1. AFAIK gv does not support bookmarks, which do help a lot. >>2. When I see what extremely slow gv displays my bitmap pictures, >> I have the very bad feeling that they are converted into _huge_ >> Postscript pictures. Bad for the resources, even for printing. For screen consultation, latex2html or similar is better IMHO , PDF is rather useful for printing (where the font rendering is OK). >> >>But it doesn't really make it better I do not use Acroread, >>because it is the "default" viewer for the rest of the world. >>So it is even worse for the user, when his/her documents >>look good for him, but ugly for the world. >> >>> > 2. The target document becomes device dependent. >> >>JMarc> That's only for PDF. So what you are after is "improve PDF support" >> >>No. For Postscript it's the same: The resolution of printers differ! >> >>> It's not really device dependent, it just supports some devices (with >>> right resolution) better than others. >> >>nice :-)) >>_That_ is exactly what I call "device dependent". >>Should the user know about the resolution of the devices? Sure, a user who doesn't know the difference between screen and printer resolution will provide lousy stuff to others one day or another. More generally - either he is admin of his facilities, and he will need to know to install (La)TeX; - or he is in a team, where someone takes cares of this (hopefully). >>Should the user "compile" his document anew, >>when he wants to use another printer? No, the dvi idea is: do not recompile, just run dvips with another driver and leave the work to Metafont...This works also to build intermediate font sizes by resizing at dvips step (dvips is VERY powerful). >>Citation from www.lyx.org: "LyX lets you concentrate on writing [...]" See above about dissociation between admin/style/... maintenance and text writing: if a class is strict about everything in the Layout->Document popup, the choices there should be ineffective. Something like novice/expert in the xemacs hm-html mode, allowing to set some kind of line between typography hacking and plain use of LyX. But I guess that developers have discussed thes point already... >> >>> (granted, outline fonts are nevertheless better). >> >>So where do we disagree? On minor points of document presentation for others, I guess on which there is much to say - because LyX/(La)TeX allows to do something really effective (and batch, very useful in intranet service); - because one of the foundations on which TeX lies is the direct re-use of existing postscript stuff, not very efficient with bitmapped postscript (but frankly, with no resize of these bitmaps and ps2pdf of the resulting postscript, you can have a result similar in size - with no bookmarks, but who cares about page layout to navigate a big document ? again, goto html, you get real world hypertext there). Just to substantiate the discussion :-) -- Jean-Pierre
Re: wish for LyX 1.2
> | Should the user know about the resolution of the devices? > | Should the user "compile" his document anew, > | when he wants to use another printer? > > Yes, to get _best_ reuslts. Don't you get always best results with outline fonts? > | > (granted, outline fonts are nevertheless better). > | > | So where do we disagree? > > Bitmap fontes created for the resoluton and size that they are view at > are better than a scaled outline font. Why? Aren't bitmap fonts also "scaled" when created? regards, Marcus Beyer http://www.Stormlight.de/lyx_de.html
Re: wish for LyX 1.2
Tuukka Toivonen a écrit : > > 1. Almost every new LyX user has to make the "ugly-fonts-experience". > > Not really, just don't use Acroread which is proprietary software anyway > and shouldn't be used. Acroread isn't installed by default anyway on most > Linux distributions, but gv is (which displays bitmap fonts just fine). I don't agree: when you publish a document, you are not supposed to know how it will be read (by acroread or another tool, on a linux platform or not). And acroread seems to be the most popular PDF reader tool, and if you really want the document being read by someone else than you, it is a good thing to check that acroread display it correctly! BG
Re: wish for LyX 1.2
Marcus Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Should the user know about the resolution of the devices? | Should the user "compile" his document anew, | when he wants to use another printer? Yes, to get _best_ reuslts. | Citation from www.lyx.org: "LyX lets you concentrate on writing [...]" | | > (granted, outline fonts are nevertheless better). | | So where do we disagree? Bitmap fontes created for the resoluton and size that they are view at are better than a scaled outline font. So all this depends on _what_ you are going to use the document for, hardcopy or screen viewing. Lgb
Re: wish for LyX 1.2
> Do you mean the editing (in LyX window) fonts > or the resulting document file fonts? The latter. I am sorry for being unprecise here! So anew: My wish for LyX 1.2: Please remove the support for bitmap fonts in target documents! juh> Its a joke, isn't it? Not at all. But it's fun (discussing about it) :-) > What comes to document file fonts, its mainly not up to LyX, since it is > TeX that does the typesetting. And in fact, _all_ fonts in TeX are > scalable "outline" fonts. The problem is not that, but the fact that TeX > fonts are difficult to convert into PostScript/PDF fonts (althought work > is done here, maybe it is possible nowadays?). Isn't it LyX who tells TeX & friends what to do? IMHO the easiest solution would be: Let the user choose between "pslatex" and "ae,aecompl" etc. > > 1. Almost every new LyX user has to make the "ugly-fonts-experience". > > Not really, just don't use Acroread which is proprietary software anyway > and shouldn't be used. Acroread isn't installed by default anyway on most > Linux distributions, but gv is (which displays bitmap fonts just fine). I use Acroread instead of gv, because: 1. AFAIK gv does not support bookmarks, which do help a lot. 2. When I see what extremely slow gv displays my bitmap pictures, I have the very bad feeling that they are converted into _huge_ Postscript pictures. Bad for the resources, even for printing. But it doesn't really make it better I do not use Acroread, because it is the "default" viewer for the rest of the world. So it is even worse for the user, when his/her documents look good for him, but ugly for the world. > > 2. The target document becomes device dependent. JMarc> That's only for PDF. So what you are after is "improve PDF support" No. For Postscript it's the same: The resolution of printers differ! > It's not really device dependent, it just supports some devices (with > right resolution) better than others. nice :-)) _That_ is exactly what I call "device dependent". Should the user know about the resolution of the devices? Should the user "compile" his document anew, when he wants to use another printer? Citation from www.lyx.org: "LyX lets you concentrate on writing [...]" > (granted, outline fonts are nevertheless better). So where do we disagree? regards, Marcus Beyer http://www.Stormlight.de/lyx_de.html
Re: wish for LyX 1.2
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Marcus Beyer wrote: > And one step further: Why should LyX support bitmap fonts? Do you mean the editing (in LyX window) fonts or the resulting document file fonts? Editing fonts: - not everybody may have outline fonts (esp. older XFree distributions) - bitmap fonts are generally _better_, if they are not scaled. - Supporting also bitmap fonts is very minimum effort, both use the standard Xlib font API. - Outline font support might be buggy. For example, for some TrueType fonts my xfstt server crashes. What comes to document file fonts, its mainly not up to LyX, since it is TeX that does the typesetting. And in fact, _all_ fonts in TeX are scalable "outline" fonts. The problem is not that, but the fact that TeX fonts are difficult to convert into PostScript/PDF fonts (althought work is done here, maybe it is possible nowadays?). So when outputting PostScript file from TeX, the fonts have generally been converted to bitmaps. The native TeX document format, dvi, doesn't contain bitmap fonts. When dvi and TeX were done, there was no Postscript (AFAIK). > 1. Almost every new LyX user has to make the "ugly-fonts-experience". Not really, just don't use Acroread which is proprietary software anyway and shouldn't be used. Acroread isn't installed by default anyway on most Linux distributions, but gv is (which displays bitmap fonts just fine). > 2. The target document becomes device dependent. It's not really device dependent, it just supports some devices (with right resolution) better than others. If the bitmap fonts are in high resolution, it isn't _that_ awful to scale them, especially by some small integer factor (granted, outline fonts are nevertheless better).
Re: wish for LyX 1.2
> "Marcus" == Marcus Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Marcus> And one step further: Why should LyX support bitmap fonts? Marcus> AFAIK this has only two important effects: Marcus> 1. Almost every new LyX user has to make the Marcus> "ugly-fonts-experience". What ugly font experience? Are you concerned about screen fonts or fonts in the DVI file? Fonts in the DVI file are only a problem in PDF files AFAIK. Marcus> 2. The target document becomes device dependent. That's only for PDF. So what you are after is "improve PDF support". Marcus> So my wish for LyX 1.2: Please remove the support for bitmap Marcus> fonts! Something like "you are trying to use a bitmap font, and we have determined that you should not. Please change your font settings, otherwise I will do that arbitrarily for you"? %-] JMarc
Re: wish for LyX 1.2
Hallo Marcus! Am Die, 23 Jan 2001, schrieb Marcus Beyer: > So my wish for LyX 1.2: Please remove the support for bitmap fonts! Its a joke, isn't it? Ciao! juh -- Y2K-Bug: Jelzin rechtzeitig abgeschaltet http://www.sudelbuch.de/1999/19991231.html
