summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Master/texmf-dist/doc/generic/FAQ-en/html/FAQ-adobetypen.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
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.html55
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&#8217;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&#8217;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 &#8216;language&#8217; used is closely restricted, to ensure that
-the font is rendered as quickly as possible. (Or rather, as quickly
-as possible with Adobe&#8217;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&#8217;s Adobe Acrobat Viewer&#8217;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>-&#62;
-<code>Document Properties</code>-&#62;
-<code>Fonts ...</code>, and it will likely show some font or other as
-&#8220;Type 3&#8221; (usually with encoding &#8220;Custom&#8221;). 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&#8217;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&#8217;t &#8220;annoy&#8221; Reader. For example, you may not
-change colour within a Type 1 font glyph, but there&#8217;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>