diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/FAQ-en/html/FAQ-adobetypen.html')
-rw-r--r-- | Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/FAQ-en/html/FAQ-adobetypen.html | 55 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 55 deletions
diff --git a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/FAQ-en/html/FAQ-adobetypen.html b/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/FAQ-en/html/FAQ-adobetypen.html deleted file mode 100644 index ab4c3dc41e0..00000000000 --- a/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/FAQ-en/html/FAQ-adobetypen.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,55 +0,0 @@ -<head> -<title>UK TeX FAQ -- question label adobetypen</title> -</head><body> -<h3>Adobe font formats</h3> -<!-- type1 type3 --> -<p/>Adobe has specified a number of formats for files to represent fonts -in PostScript files; this question doesn’t attempt to be encyclopaedic, so -we only discuss the two formats most commonly encountered in the -(La)TeX context, types 1 and 3. In particular, we don’t discuss the -OpenType format, whose many advantages have only in the last year -or two been readily accessible to most (La)TeX users (by means of - the widely-used <a href="FAQ-xetex.html">XeTeX</a> and the more experimental - <a href="FAQ-luatex.html">LuaTeX</a>). - -<p/>Adobe Type 1 format specifies a means to represent outlines of the glyphs -in a font. The ‘language’ used is closely restricted, to ensure that -the font is rendered as quickly as possible. (Or rather, as quickly -as possible with Adobe’s technology at the time the specification was -written: the structure could well be different if it were specified -now.) The format has long been the basis of the digital type-foundry -business, though nowadays most new fonts are released in OpenType format. -<p/> - - - -<p/>In the (La)TeX context, Type 1 fonts are extremely important. Apart -from their simple -availability (there are thousands of commercial Type 1 text fonts around), the -commonest reader for PDF files has long (in effect) <em>insisted</em> on -their use (see below). -<p/>Type 3 fonts have a more forgiving specification. A wide range of -PostScript operators is permissible, including bitmap specifiers. Type 3 -is therefore the natural format to be used for programs such as -<i>dvips</i> when they auto-generate something to represent -Metafont-generated fonts in a PostScript file. It’s Adobe Acrobat Viewer’s -treatment of bitmap Type 3 fonts that has made direct Metafont output -increasingly unattractive, in recent years. If you have a PDF -document in which the text looks fuzzy and uneven in Acrobat Reader, -ask Reader for the <code>File</code>-> -<code>Document Properties</code>-> -<code>Fonts ...</code>, and it will likely show some font or other as -“Type 3” (usually with encoding “Custom”). The problem has -disappeared with version 6 of Acrobat Reader. See -<a href="FAQ-dvips-pdf.html">PDF quality</a> for a discussion of -the issue, and for ways of addressing it. -<p/>Type 3 fonts should not entirely be dismissed, however. Acrobat -Reader’s failure with them is entirely derived from its failure to use -the anti-aliasing techniques common in TeX-ware. Choose a -different set of PostScript graphical operators, and you can make pleasing -Type 3 fonts that don’t “annoy” Reader. For example, you may not -change colour within a Type 1 font glyph, but there’s no such -restriction on a Type 3 font, which opens opportunities for some -startling effects. -<p/><p>This question on the Web: <a href="http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=adobetypen">http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=adobetypen</a> -</body> |