Knut,
On 29/12/14 14:05, Knut Petersen wrote:
> On 29.12.2014 09:15, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>>
>>> If you find it straightforward to encapsulate the code, then we can
>>> probably incorporate it.
>> Knut, are you willing to work on that, this is, adding a command line
>> argument and properly docum
On 28.12.2014 23:46, Keith OHara wrote:
if we can avoid whatever problems induced HanWen to move to using glyph names in the .ps.
Well, using glyphshow and glyphnames was and is easy, and for a normal document
it is a very efficient solution.
cu,
Knut
___
On 29.12.2014 09:15, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
If you find it straightforward to encapsulate the code, then we can
probably incorporate it.
Knut, are you willing to work on that, this is, adding a command line
argument and properly documenting it?
Yes, I could do that.
cu,
Knut
__
2014-12-29 11:07 GMT+01:00 Werner LEMBERG :
> PS: What about creating a single PDF from *all* lilypond manuals?
> This should then be able to benefit from your changes, right? I
> can even imagine that this `complete' document would be
> considerably smaller than the the current `nota
>>> - link targets in files processed by ghostscript git master are
>>>lost.
>> Is this a bug in gs?
>
> No, not really. It's a missing feature. See
> http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695747
Interesting.
> Unfortunately that means that the patch should not be used to
> generate t
On 29.12.2014 05:56, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Please report this to the author of pdfsizeopt.py, who is still
maintaining the program (though not *very* active, it seems).
I'll do that soon, but first I'll look at the code myself.
- link targets in files processed by ghostscript git master are
> I thought that the effort to implement and at least minimally
> document the command-line option would be greater than the value to
> the users of TeX + LilyPond + pdfsizeopt (excluding Knut, who can
> already already use his patch).
Well, his test shows
19.979.555 original 2.18.2 notation.pd
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 21:10:59 -0800, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
https://codereview.appspot.com/191360043/
Unfortunately, this doesn't correctly include the new file
`encodingdefs.ps' – it is tagged as a `binary'...
Oops, forgot to change the settings.
There is no existing file to compare to, so t
> I put the patch in the usual LilyPond form at
> https://codereview.appspot.com/191360043/
> along with links to LilyPond history and the Ghostscript discussion.
Unfortunately, this doesn't correctly include the new file
`encodingdefs.ps' – it is tagged as a `binary'...
> This helps with TeX d
> The attached patch (against 2.18.2) changes the way lilypond uses
> fonts to draw glyphs.
Thanks for this exercise! The results are impressive indeed.
> - pdfsizeopt.py is neither capable to process the notation.pdf from
> 2.18.2 nor the notation.pdf generated by the patched version of
>
Knut Petersen t-online.de> writes:
> The attached patch (against 2.18.2) changes the way lilypond
> uses fonts to draw glyphs.
>
> It avoids to used glyphshow for all emmentaler glyphs and
> adds encoding vectors to the emmentaler fonts before they
> are used. It also changes the ghostscript par
The attached patch (against 2.18.2) changes the way lilypond
uses fonts to draw glyphs.
It avoids to used glyphshow for all emmentaler glyphs and
adds encoding vectors to the emmentaler fonts before they
are used. It also changes the ghostscript parameters used
to generate pdfs from postscript co
12 matches
Mail list logo
