Pablo Saratxaga wrote: > > Kaixo! > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 05:12:32PM +0200, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > > > > Just to let yyou know of a problem with the Type1 fonts in the package > > Yes. > The font are wrong, they use iso8859-1 names instead of iso8859-8 ones. > > That is the reason why I supplied a file microsoft-win3.1.enc with tons > of aliases; to allow those incorrect fonts to still be used on display. > > However, it seems that for Type1 fonts the encoding is handled internally; > no matter what I put in the enc file the result is this the same... (are *.enc > files are no longer used for Type1 fonts? or I need to restart X or something?) > > Anyway, it would be better to fix the fonts; so not only they will work > in X11 again, but they will be usable for printing in Hebrew too (currently > they are only usable to print in iso-8859-1)
The number "8859-8" or "8859-1" is not mentioned anywhere in the Type1 font files. You are probably talking about fonts.dir/fonts.alias. As to these files, it is not exact to say that 8859-1 is used INSTEAD of 8859-8; Actually, both of the encodings are used simultaneously, for each font. Removing the "8859-1" is not "fixing the fonts"; Actually, in the beginning the only encoding was "8859-8", but MANY applications refused to use those fonts. For example, Netscape 2/3/4 agreed to download only fonts which it "recognized" their encodings. And "8859-8" was not among them (even by using "User-Defined"). I'm talking about really MANY apps. In any case, we didn't discuss this issue, but another thing: The DICT encoding attribute of the Type1 files. The problem exists with both 8859 encodings, and disappears when "fixing" (i.e. breaking) that DICT attribute, no matter what 8859 is defined. Please read on. > No, the Type1 encoding did not changed; it is just that now Type1 fonts > are no longer limited to latin1 ones. I just know that hundreds, or even thousands, UNIX and Linux users, have used these fonts for years. Until they stopped to work suddenly (the fonts, not the users...). Just to clarify: I'm not talking only about a new standard that is suddenly supported, but about a long-years-standard that STOPPED to work. Anyway, I'll fix the encoding (i.e. the Type1 "Encoding", not the "8859-8"/"8859-1" issue) in the following days. It's good to know that you are the maintainer of this package in MandrakeSoft; Thanks to knowing this fact, I'll know who to update after fixing the fonts. > > I don't have any clue what standard these names are based on; It is not > > Adobe defines those names. Originally, I took the names from the sources of old versions of FS/XFS; I guess that these names replaced the original ones in one of the latest versions of XF86. I don't have anything against standards; It just annoys when you must modify your stuff due to changing standards... > > for Linux, because after this change, the fonts will not work with > > other UNIXes. > > That means those other Unixes don't support Hebrew Postscript fonts at > all then. > > You can cheat and claim you don't use Hebrew but English or German, > and use an iso8859-1 font (even if you name it iso8859-8, and if it has > some weird glyphs that happen to look like Hebrew letters more than > lowercase accented latin ones); but that is and remains a dirty hack. > A system needing that simply does not have Hebrew support. > > I'll expect any system with real Hebrew support (including RTL) will not > only support correctly encoded Hebrew fonts, but also *require* them. Again, when we are talking about "encoding", we mean to the dict attribute of Type1, which doesn't have anything to do with 8859-1/ 8859-8. The fonts, no matter if they were encoded "-8" or "-1", didn't work. The solution was to change the standard Type1 *DICT* encoding, from "agrave" etc., to "afii57664" etc. This "solution" break compatibility with most of the UNIX implementations. Nobody never claimed that "8859-1" is the right encoding for Hebrew. Of course "8859-8" is the right one, and "8859-1" is only an ADDITION to allow many non-Hebrew apps to work too. "8859-1" is also not mentioned ANYWHERE in those PFA files. And this is not the issue of this thread, but just the issue of why "agrave" and its friends are not supported anymore. P.S. Since I'm not subscribed to XFree86 list, this message will probably not reach the list; In this case, one of both of you may forward it to the list. Thanks! -- Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED] CTO, Founder Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd. __________________________________________________________ Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Harutzim St. Fax.: +972-9-766-1314 P.O.B. 7004 Mobile: +972-50-23-7338 Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel _______________________________________________ Fonts mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/fonts
