> > PBA,PBF -> AFM
> Are those new types or typos?
Typos, sorry.
[In the following, I assume that you want to get metrics, right?]
> So, to clarify, you advise that:
>
> 1. If I find a PFB file without an AFM, just use the PFB (i.e. link
> into ~/.fonts).
> 2. If I find a PFB with a partner AFM file, use both (i.e. link both
> into ~/.fonts).
> 3. If I find a PFA file without an AFM, just use the PFA.
> 4. If I find a PFA with a partner AFM, use both.
> 5. Ignore any and all PFM files.
Step 5 could be: If there is no AFM file for this font, try to find a
PFM file instead.
> > This is it. There are other PS font formats,
>
> Are these worth supporting? I don't think I have one on my entire
> Kubuntu system. What would they be called? "Postscript fonts"?
Well, OpenType fonts (often with extension `.otf') are either based on
TrueType outlines or PostScript outlines (as CFF). Then, there are
pure CFFs, there are Type 42 fonts, etc., etc. Not a trivial topic.
> Look into FreeType's `formats.txt' documentation file.
>
> Thanks, I had a look. There is no mention of pf* in that file at
> all.
Well, `PFA' and `PFB' are subsumed under `TYPE_1'. However, it's just
a MS-DOS/Windows convention that such fonts have either `.pfa' or
`.pfb' as the extension.
> Kind of confusing for me, but I'll read it a few times.
It's *very* confusing, indeed. It took me many hours to compile this
small table, and to grasp the distinction between wrapper format, font
format, and font type is nontrivial.
Werner
_______________________________________________
Freetype-devel mailing list
Freetype-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freetype-devel
