> Two changes: > 1) \texteuro > 2) GPL in musixdoc and musix*.tex sources and in main *.mf routines. > > > I notice that you still used the bitmapped fonts in making musixdoc.pdf. > > When I took over the software section of the archive, I made a pdf of > > musixtex.doc 1.03 using postscript fonts: > > You are welcome to do it but only as AN ALTERNATIVE. In fact, I > experience that several users of Acrobat Read DO NOT have all fonts, and > this is far more likely with the PostScript fonts for MuysixTeX. > Now, since the PDF of musixdoc is supposed to be read by people who have > NOT already installed musixtex, I state that it must be readable by > Acrobat whatever postscript fonts they have. Otherwise you prove people > with a black box whose key in locked inside!
no. see below. > > http://icking-music-archive.sunsite.dk/software/musixtex/musixdoc.pdf > > > > Postscript fonts have two major advantages in pdf files: > > > > 1. The entire text in the pdf can be searched. This is really a big step > > forward. > > 2. When you view the pdf on screen with adobe acrobat, it looks a lot > > better. > > Yes, but the bitmap fonts appear on the sceen of anybody, regardless of > the fonts he has installed. > Thus, using PostScript fonts is OK for anything, EXCEPT musixdoc. i *never* distill tex-related things without embedding the fonts my document is using. if the fonts are embedded, then they're available to the reader, so your objection is invalid -- the only difference with bitmapped fonts is that they're far harder to read on screen. > > I encourage you to try out the new postscript fonts. i do too. _______________________________________________ TeX-music mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
