On 2015/04/08 20:18:55, lemzwerg wrote:
> I like the current overall look for _this_ choice of fonts > better afterwards as compared to before, even though the "C" > glyph has a more conspicuous rounding and the "G" glyph has > the well-known somewhat poignant Helvetica shape.
Yes, it's more consistent. On the other hand, I very much dislike
Helvetica,
and maybe there's a better choice eventually...
> It's a pity that Pango does not seem to support some setup > where there would be a graceful upgradation to the > identically-metriced Helvetica when available: > many professional printers/publishers have the original > Helvetica readily available in their setup.
It's not clear to me what you expect and how it should work.
Letting PostScript ask for Helvetica which will let GhostScript fall back to the URW version when the original Helvetica is not available. If I understand correctly, we currently ask for and embed the URW version. But maybe printers have their own way to resubstitute the original. No idea. https://codereview.appspot.com/224800043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
