> FYI: the free program "pfaedit" has a type 3 parser. I haven't tried plugging Feta
>into it.
>
> > The problem is
> > rather difficult, btw.
>
> The general problem is, of course, but have you bothered to read the feta type 3
>code? There's nothing sophisticated in it and I'm
> sure an experienced postscript hacker could cook up (at most) a simple recursive
>decent parser to do it, maybe with a little duct
> tape.
>
> Any such conversions will still be primitive compared to a "real" type 1 font for
>screen output because of lack of hinting. Once
> there was an outline conversion, hints could be added by an expert by hand, but that
>works against the "everything should have
> source code" mentality. IMHO not a huge deal. And hints would be a definite
>improvement for a few symbols (accidentals come
> immediatly to mind.)
I'm not an expert in what hinting is, but at least for the music
typesetting, I don't think it would make any difference, since
Lilypond determines the exact position of each symbol. It might
make a difference if the symbols are used within ordinary text,
where TeX handles the positioning.
> BTW- I was wondering the other day how much nonlinear scaling behavior there is in
>feta. (Ie, the thing that Computer Modern does
> a lot but TrueType, Type 1, fonts can't.) I don't know enough metafont to see for
>myself.
You mean that the proportions are different for different font sizes?
At least for the few symbols I've designed for the Feta font, this
hasn't been done in any systematic way.
/Mats
_______________________________________________
Gnu-music-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-music-discuss
