xetex+dvipdfmx outputs are also ugly in poppler based viewer.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
> Yue Wang wrote:
>>
>> oh, i forgot to paste the link here:
>>
>> http://yulewang.googlepages.com/lmbug.png
>
> You should try to see if there are noticeable differences when:
>
>
Yue Wang wrote:
oh, i forgot to paste the link here:
http://yulewang.googlepages.com/lmbug.png
You should try to see if there are noticeable differences when:
* printing
* viewing in acrobat reader
* veiwing ghostscript
* compared to xetex + xdvipdfmx
because it wouldn't surprise me if this
oh, i forgot to paste the link here:
http://yulewang.googlepages.com/lmbug.png
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Diego Depaoli wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Yue Wang wrote:
>> hi
>> here is a image of 4 pdf file.
> where?
>
> --
> Diego Depaoli
> ___
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Yue Wang wrote:
> hi
> here is a image of 4 pdf file.
where?
--
Diego Depaoli
___
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : ntg-
hi
here is a image of 4 pdf file.
a.pdf is compiled using lm fonts under mkii
b.pdf is compiled using lm fonts under mkiv
c.pdf is compiled using cm fonts under mkii
d.pdf is compiled using cm fonts under etex+dvipdfmx
So I think there is some problem with lm otf fonts (or maybe mkiv do
not embed
