> On Sat, 29 Dec 2001 15:22:08 -0800, "Alexander V. Voinov" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Yes, a PDF with embedded fonts is larger, but who cares these days? > > Anyone waiting for the file to come through a thirtysomething kbps > modem connection on a pay-per-call unit phone line...
i feel your pain[*]. however, the .pdf is pretty huge, even with the hideous bitmap fonts in it, and to sit there and wait for this huge object to download, and then to find you can hardly view the result is even less my idea of fun than waiting somewhat longer for something i _can_ view. the *only* advantage of pdf over ps (in functional terms) is that the viewers are available and cleverer than the postscript ones (where those exist). however, if the viewer can't actually see the detail of the music, what's the use of the manual. sure, you can print from pdf, but you can print from postscript too, and postscript compresses sufficiently well that it's a pretty close-run thing between it and the corresponding .pdf (which, properly done, will have sufficient internal compression that entire-body compressors don't gain you much). the postscript is available, compressed, already: that'll do for 99+% of printing. let's get the viewing as good as we can manage, and accept that the size will make it prohibitive for some people. robin [*] my partner's in the same situation, until i can get a home network running. but then she uses sibelius :+} _______________________________________________ TeX-music mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
