Re: [NTG-context] Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat
Why do you whish to reinstall all the supplied fonts? Or do you just want to learn how to use texfont? I simply wish to use the fonts as most others do (I think) and I am unable to because of this bug. The normal context fonts do not exist on Gerben's version. Before Gerben's reorganisation they were made by texfont, this now does not work because of what I believe to be a simple (I do not understand Perl otherwise I would have a go at fixing it) bug in texfont. Maybe I am wrong but I am beginning to find this extremely frustrating (7 months). Once I realised that somebody was working on texfont 1.8 I had hoped for a fix. If no developer/Perl expert has Gerbens version of tetex perhaps I could help debug if a version was supplied to me that printed out the full path that texfont was looking for files in. The --fontroot option or kpsewhich lookup appears to be at fault but I have no debugging facilities. Any suggestions (other than giving up) gratefully received. TIA -- Nigel ___ ntg-context mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Nigel King wrote: Why do you whish to reinstall all the supplied fonts? Or do you just want to learn how to use texfont? I simply wish to use the fonts as most others do (I think) and I am unable to because of this bug. The normal context fonts do not exist on Gerben's version. Before Gerben's reorganisation they were made by texfont, this now does not work because of what I believe to be a simple (I do not understand Perl otherwise I would have a go at fixing it) bug in texfont. Maybe I am wrong but I am beginning to find this extremely frustrating (7 months). Once I realised that somebody was working on texfont 1.8 I had hoped for a fix. On all the systems I use, (linux, SGI Irix, Win32 with texLive) you have to run texfont to generate tfm's, vf's and map files for fonts other than CM. The last time I tried to run texfont (from the final TeX Live 2003 inst iso), it tried to use a lower-cased version of the install path, e.g., /opt/texline instead of /opt/texLive. If no developer/Perl expert has Gerbens version of tetex perhaps I could help debug if a version was supplied to me that printed out the full path that texfont was looking for files in. The --fontroot option or kpsewhich lookup appears to be at fault but I have no debugging facilities. Any suggestions (other than giving up) gratefully received. You will have to learn a tiny bit of perl (which is easier than learning TeX). -- George N. White III [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ ntg-context mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Patrick Gundlach wrote:
[...]
According to to the statements from Walter Schmidt, a TeX font expert
(perhaps I should say *the* TeX font expert?) in
http://tug.daimi.au.dk/archives/tex-fonts/msg01328.html
\quote{%
Note, however, that embedding of URW's fonts, while using the
(PSNFSS) Adobe Base35 metrics, will _not_ lead to any bugs!
The character metrics are matching! Differences in the
character bounding boxes are irrelevant for the advance widths!
The only drawback is, that you cannot access those glyphs that
are in the URW fonts, but not in the Adobe fonts. Indeed, this
could be overcome by providing particular metrics and VFs for
the URW fonts -- see below. }
Hans has demonstated that even the Adobe fonts don't have the same
metrics. It should also be noted that in practice, if you don't embed
fonts, you will often get font substitutions in the PS rasterizer (e.g.,
ghostscript defaults will use URW fonts where the file requests a Base35
font, current acrobat reader will use Arial where the file requests
Helvetica, some printers with clone interpreters (many recent HP models)
use clone fonts.
There are several versions of the URW fonts in use now: two ghostscript
versions, and a number of versions with additional glyphs distributed
with linux (and I am told that the software used to create the recent
versions may have tampered with the metrics for glyphs that were not
changed).
If you embed the URW fonts using the original URW names it is clear which
fonts are to be used. This discourages people from optimizing your
files by stripping out the fonts. For archival EPS figures it makes sense
to go further and replace fonts with outline paths. In this way the
figures should remain useful even after the fonts are no longer supported
by the available rasterizers.
--
George White [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
189 Parklea Dr., Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia B3Z 2G6
___
ntg-context mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat
At 11:00 09/10/2003, you wrote:
Hi,
Hans Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So what is wrong with adobekb.tex? It is now included in ConTeXt, so
with \usetypescript[adobekb][someencoding] your psnfss fonts should
work fine.
i can make a default for that but only when i can be absolutely sire
that the metrics are there that i want there to be -)
According to to the statements from Walter Schmidt, a TeX font expert
(perhaps I should say *the* TeX font expert?) in
http://tug.daimi.au.dk/archives/tex-fonts/msg01328.html
\quote{%
Note, however, that embedding of URW's fonts, while using the
(PSNFSS) Adobe Base35 metrics, will _not_ lead to any bugs!
The character metrics are matching! Differences in the
character bounding boxes are irrelevant for the advance widths!
The only drawback is, that you cannot access those glyphs that
are in the URW fonts, but not in the Adobe fonts. Indeed, this
could be overcome by providing particular metrics and VFs for
the URW fonts -- see below. }
hm, there are more font experts (nelson b, boguslaw j, adam t, tom k, some
people on this list as well, to mention a few), here is what Nelson Beebe
says about this topic in a different thread ..
Walter confirms what I have assumed: we can use the Adobe metrics from
the PSNFSS bundle with the URW fonts.
I have serious reservations about this.
While as far as I know, there has been only one release of URW fonts,
and thus only one pair of (.pf[ab],.afm) files for each typeface, with
Adobe fonts, over the last 19 years, there have been silent changes
made to at least AFM files for many fonts, including Times-Roman.
This makes me suspect that the base-14 or base-35 fonts embedded in
tens of millions of laser printers with Adobe PostScript
implementations may in fact not be identical, even though they share
common font names.
Of course, the changes are usually pretty small, and few people would
ever notice. However, precise character positioning demands knowledge
of metrics, and if a TeX job uses metrics which differ from those
embedded with a font in a printer, and uses the resident fonts, rather
than downloading them, then output will certainly not be what TeX (and
the user) intended. That is one reason why I've never been entirely
happy with fontless PostScript and PDF files, and why I was
exceedingly unhappy with the change in Adobe Illustrator last year
that completely ignores embedded fonts, and uses only installed fonts.
The program MIME-attached below can be used to compare AFM files, and
I have just done so with the
texlive7/texmf/fonts/afm/{adobe,urw}/times/*.afm files.
The first thing to note is that the URW fonts contain many more
glyphs: 316 for Times-Roman compared to Adobe's 228. A TeX file that
used any of the additional URW glyphs would print incorrectly with
Adobe's Times-Roman.
The second thing is that the bounding boxes can be a bit different,
and sometimes very different, even when the widths are identical:
% awk -f afmdiff.awk /tmp/afm/adobe/times/ptmr8a.afm
/tmp/afm/urw/times/utmr8a.afm
Comparison of AFM metrics in files:
/tmp/afm/adobe/times/ptmr8a.afm /tmp/afm/urw/times/utmr8a.afm
Font names: Times-Roman NimbusRomNo9L-Regu
...
WX width differences:
Bounding box width differences:
dagger-1 dieresis -1 dotaccent
-1
exclam 1 exclamdown 1 Idieresis
-1
idieresis 39 three -1
threesuperior -1
Bounding box height differences:
Adieresis 1 adieresis 1 aring
-10
Aring-17 asciitilde 6 dieresis
1
dotaccent 1 Edieresis 1 edieresis
1
exclamdown-2 greater -4 Idieresis
1
idieresis 1 less -4 Odieresis
1
odieresis 1 plusminus-62 q
-1
questiondown -2 s 1 Udieresis
1
udieresis 1 Ydieresis 1 ydieresis
1
TeX uses more than just the bare width, so I suspect that we can
readily demonstrate different typesetting with these two
purportedly-compatible Times-Roman fonts from URL and Adobe. As a
simple experiment, I created two DVI files with tex testfont, like
this:
% tex testfont
This is TeX, Version 3.1415 (C version 6.1)
(/usr/local/lib/tex/inputs/testfont.tex
Name of the font to test = ptmr8r
Now type a test command (\help for help):)
*\table
*\bye
[1]
Output written on testfont.dvi (1 page, 10632 bytes).
Transcript written on testfont.log.
% mv testfont.dvi testfont-ptmr8r.dvi
and similarly for utmr8r. I then ran dv2dt on both, and compared the
output:
% dv2dt
