Re: Font problem or not?
> "Staszek" == Staszek Wawrykiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Your message is however interesting: do you mean that pdftex.map > should contain for future pdftex, say: > ptmr8r "TeXBase1Encoding ReEncodeFont" <8r.enc > (internal PS /FontName omitted)? No, this is needed by the current pdfTeX. A future version could either ignore the /FontName entry (and does not replace the font in included files) or, which would be better, it looks for SlantFont and ExtendFont in the map file and substitutes the appropriate font. Maybe at the moment it is best to leave the /FontName in the map file for fonts that are not transformed (i.e. no SlantFont or ExtendFont). Then fonts in included files can be substituted. This might save a lot of space. > As for now only transformed constructs can work, e.g.: ptmbo8r > ".167 SlantFont TeXBase1Encoding ReEncodeFont" <8r.enc > program is to be transformed (utmb8a.pfb), so cannot be applied > to the builtin fonts. Am I wrong? To transform a font, it's /FontMatrix must be changed, thus, it must be embedded. Builtin fonts are inaccessable when creating a pdf file. > The whole mess about fonts, maps, etc. is still waiting for a > good explanation/road map. As I've observed, the users always > cannot understand it (not counting that mailing-list members ;-) The dvips and pdftex manuals provide a lot of information, especially about map files. You find more information about fonts in the LaTeX Graphics Companion and there are a lot of Adobe Tech Notes on the Adobe server. But I agree, it's a mess. Regards, Reinhard -- Reinhard Kotucha Phone: +49-511-27060390 Marschnerstr. 25 D-30167 Hannover mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO.
Re: Font problem or not?
26 Nov 2002 Reinhard Kotucha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Staszek Wawrykiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > It seems somehow strange. Why both map files differ? As I > > understand the whole mechanism, different map files for dvips > > and pdftex are only needed when we use fonts from the standard > > set for PostScript devices (35 Laser Writer fonts) or for .pdf > > files (Acrobat Reader has 14 builtin fonts, a subset of > > 35LW). For all other fonts the map files should be the same: > In pdftex.map the internal PS /FontName should be omitted. If you > include an external PDF file which, say, uses the font > /Palatino-Roman, the current version of pdfTeX tries to substitute the > font. It looks in pdftex.map for Palatino-Roman, but it does not > check whether the font is transformed and might fetch the wrong one. The primary thread was about nonstandard (vendor's) font installed by the user, so my reply as above. [by the way, I sent it on 31 Oct, but it was published on Nov 25 ?]. Your message is however interesting: do you mean that pdftex.map should contain for future pdftex, say: ptmr8r "TeXBase1Encoding ReEncodeFont" <8r.enc (internal PS /FontName omitted)? As for now only transformed constructs can work, e.g.: ptmbo8r ".167 SlantFont TeXBase1Encoding ReEncodeFont" <8r.enc
Re: Font problem or not?
> "Staszek" == Staszek Wawrykiewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It seems somehow strange. Why both map files differ? As I > understand the whole mechanism, different map files for dvips > and pdftex are only needed when we use fonts from the standard > set for PostScript devices (35 Laser Writer fonts) or for .pdf > files (Acrobat Reader has 14 builtin fonts, a subset of > 35LW). For all other fonts the map files should be the same: > both PS and PDF output should have font programs (pfb) > downloaded, so map files should contain, e.g. > tfmname mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO.
Re: Font problem or not?
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Staszek Wawrykiewicz wrote: > George N. White III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I find the current map file mechanism problematic, especially when using > > non-std fonts, because you can't tell from the TeX source what fonts are > > really being used. > > It is not TeX problem but final output/device dependent. For TeX we use > only .tfm files. So you can have dvips fail to find the font that corresponds to the .tfm file (missing entry) or end up with different fonts being used on different systems (e.g., Adobe vs URW, MathTime vs Belleek, etc). > If (for some reason) we have two different map files, we can always declare > them in config.ps and pdftex.cfg, respectively (p +mymap.map). You can, but if you take the file to another system or mail it to someone else, will you remember to change the .map files? If you use pdftex's ability to load map files specified in the .tex file, it is at least clear which fonts you intended to use, and it will be obvious if the required map files aren't present. -- George White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia
Re: Font problem or not?
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Richard Sperling wrote: > ... I'm using the 10/13/02 teTeX beta and > I've got purchased type1 fonts that I wish to use with latex and > pdf(la)tex. The vendor supplied two map files that (obviously?) differ > slightly: one for dvips and one for pdftex. It seems somehow strange. Why both map files differ? As I understand the whole mechanism, different map files for dvips and pdftex are only needed when we use fonts from the standard set for PostScript devices (35 Laser Writer fonts) or for .pdf files (Acrobat Reader has 14 builtin fonts, a subset of 35LW). For all other fonts the map files should be the same: both PS and PDF output should have font programs (pfb) downloaded, so map files should contain, e.g. tfmname writes: > I find the current map file mechanism problematic, especially when using > non-std fonts, because you can't tell from the TeX source what fonts are > really being used. It is not TeX problem but final output/device dependent. For TeX we use only .tfm files. If (for some reason) we have two different map files, we can always declare them in config.ps and pdftex.cfg, respectively (p +mymap.map). -- Staszek Wawrykiewicz email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Font problem or not?
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Richard Sperling wrote: > I apologize if this issue has already been dealt with, but I did search > online and didn't find an answer. I'm using the 10/13/02 teTeX beta and > I've got purchased type1 fonts that I wish to use with latex and > pdf(la)tex. The vendor supplied two map files that (obviously?) differ > slightly: one for dvips and one for pdftex. If I add both of these map > files using updmap, will this create a problem in the sense that the > last map file added overwrites the first map file? I wouldn't think > duplicate entries in the map files would present a problem, but I want > to make sure. Thanks for your help. You will get warning messages for the duplicate entries in a map file. If an entry already exists, any later entry is ignored. I find the current map file mechanism problematic, especially when using non-std fonts, because you can't tell from the TeX source what fonts are really being used. With pdftex you get new primitives to load map files. ConTeXt makes heavy use of this facility, and I find it very helpful. Rather than just a log entry for pdftex.map you get to see the names of the individual map files. Are you sure you want to make .dvi files? -- George N. White III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tel: 902.426.8509 Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Nova Scotia, Canada (TZ=AST4ADT)
