Follow-up Comment #18, bug #66323 (group groff):
> > pdfmom -Kutf8 -P-e good-clean.mom > good-clean.pdf
> > along with their respective ps and pdf files. The family
> > is T, not U-T, because the URW fonts are not, by default, in
> > font/devps. (Why?)
> Deri's been asking me that for a long time and I no longer remember the
answer. Something was difficult about it. Maybe I wouldn't find it so
anymore.
Using afmtodit to generate new groff fonts from current versions of the URW
fonts yields a magnitude more kern pairs than our current stock 35 fonts,
which means all documents will render differently after the new fonts
installed (tighter text because a lot more kerning).
One solution is we retire our current fonts to an oldfont-1.23.0 directory and
generate new fonts for devps, which would mean people could use -F to restore
the old font behaviour. As well as more kerning, there is significantly more
glyph coverage as well, which may be a problem. grops does not embed any of
the 35 standard fonts in its postscript, it relies on the fact that all
postscript printers would have a rom containing the 35 fonts in orderfor adobe
to allow it to be called a "postscript printer". Would these roms hold more
than the 256 standard glyphs, unlikely if we are talking about a 30 yr old
apple laser writer. grops can of course embed fonts in the postscript, so
grops could be given an -e flag (like gropdf) which tells it to embed all
fonts. This would require a suitable download file.
Another would be to extend the foundry solution and add a -y flag to groff so
with -yU when it processed .ft TR it would go looking for U-TR and .fam T
would be understood as U-T. This means either set of fonts can be used by the
same roff doc.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66323>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
