Mats Bengtsson wrote: > > > Much of the traffic on this list in the last month or two has > > been concerned with the joys of Type-1 fonts and the woes of > > their imperfections, especially when creating PDF documents. > > > > I have sympathy with the desire to standardize on something, > > and I accept that the archive also contains documents not > > produced using MusiXTeX, which rules out the DVI format as > > a universal standard. > > > > Nevertheless, "if it ain't broken don't fix it." Of all the > > viewers I have for documents, the DVI viewer looks best on > > my screen when viewing TeX-produced documents. Next best is > > Ghostview. Last is Acrobat Reader. > > > > Now Ghostview is just as freely available from the exact same > > company as Acrobat Reader. The only defect of the Postscript > > format versus PDF as far as I can see, is that some minimal > > installations of Windows 9x don't have Ghostview, but might > > (only might) have Acrobat Reader. If we do need to cater to > > those who don't have TeX, why can't we stick with Postscript? > > See for example the discussions some months ago on the problems > to configure MS Explorer and Netscape to handle gzipped PS files. >
Personally I agree with Dirk that the screen rendering quality of Ghostview is better than that of Acrobat Reader (that is not true for DVI/xdvi in my experience - maybe due to my hardware). My main reason for converting as many of our postscript scores as possible to pdf is that I as sheet note editor regularily receive emails from frustrated, non-techie users having problems with handling the postscript format. Another important aspect is the browser problem that Mats mentions. Bye -- Christian Mondrup, Computer Programmer Scandiatransplant, Skejby Hospital, University Hospital of Aarhus Brendstrupgaardsvej, DK 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark Phone: +45 89 49 53 01 - http://www.scandiatransplant.org _______________________________________________ TeX-music mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
