MacOSX-TeX Digest #277 - 03/28/02

TeX on Mac OS X Mailing List MacOSX-TeX at email.esm.psu.edu
Fri Mar 29 02:00:01 CET 2002


MacOSX-TeX Digest #277 - Thursday, March 28, 2002

  Fonts?
          by "Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus at mac.com>
  Re: [OS X TeX] Fonts included with Textures?
          by "Adrian Heathcote" <adrian.heathcote at philosophy.usyd.edu.au>
  Re: [OS X TeX] Two questions (documentation-related)
          by "Claus Gerhardt" <gerhardt at math.uni-heidelberg.de>
  Re: [OS X TeX] Fonts included with Textures?
          by "Christopher B Hamlin" <chamlin at optonline.net>
  Re: [OS X TeX] Two questions (documentation-related)
          by "Enrico Franconi" <franconi at cs.man.ac.uk>
  Re: OzTeX 5.0a and xypic
          by "Andrew Trevorrow" <andrew at trevorrow.com>
  ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
          by "Gerben Wierda" <sherlock at rna.nl>
  Fonts &c. (was Re: [OS X TeX] Fonts included with Textures?)
          by "William Adams" <wadams at atlis.com>
  Re: Fonts &c. (was Re: [OS X TeX] Fonts included with Textures?)
          by "Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus at mac.com>
  Re: Fonts &c. (was Re: [OS X TeX] Fonts included with Textures?)
          by "Adrian Heathcote" <adrian.heathcote at philosophy.usyd.edu.au>
  Re: Fonts &c. (was Re: [OS X TeX] Fonts included with Textures?)
          by "mark" <markds at mac.com>
  Re: [OS X TeX] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
          by "Gérard Degrez" <degrez at vki.ac.be>
  Re: Fonts &c. (was Re: [OS X TeX] Fonts included with Textures?)
          by "William Adams" <wadams at atlis.com>
  Re: [pdftex] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
          by "Oscar Chávez" <oc918 at mizzou.edu>
  Re: [OS X TeX] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
          by "Gerben Wierda" <sherlock at rna.nl>
  Re: [OS X TeX] Re: [pdftex] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
          by "Gerben Wierda" <sherlock at rna.nl>
  Re: [OS X TeX] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
          by "Gérard Degrez" <degrez at vki.ac.be>
  Re: [OS X TeX] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
          by "Gerben Wierda" <sherlock at rna.nl>
  Re: Fonts &c. (was Re: [OS X TeX] Fonts included with Textures?)
          by "Peter Erwin" <erwin at ll.iac.es>
  Re: Fonts &c. (was Re: [OS X TeX] Fonts included with Textures?)
          by "William Adams" <wadams at atlis.com>
  OzTeX 5.0a and Acrobat (Distiller?)
          by <get86 at mac.com>
  Got it! Re: [OS X TeX] OzTeX 5.0a and Acrobat (Distiller?)
          by <get86 at mac.com>
  Re: [OS X TeX] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
          by "Gary L. Gray" <gray at engr.psu.edu>
  Re: [OS X TeX] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
          by "Gerben Wierda" <sherlock at rna.nl>
  Re: [OS X TeX] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
          by "Gerben Wierda" <sherlock at rna.nl>
  Re: [OS X TeX] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
          by "Gary L. Gray" <gray at engr.psu.edu>
  Re: [OS X TeX] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
          by "Philippe Lelédy" <phl at leledy.org>
  Re: [OS X TeX] Fonts included with Textures?
          by "Ross Moore" <ross at ics.mq.edu.au>
  Re: [OS X TeX] GS 6 and 7 and Apple Bug
          by "Richard Koch" <koch at math.uoregon.edu>
  Re: [OS X TeX] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
          by "Michel Bovani" <michel.bovani at wanadoo.fr>


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fonts?
From: "Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus at mac.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:28:30 -0500


Can someone (William?) recommend a good font to invest in that:

a) a unix idiot (me) can easily set up for use with pdftex
b) will be fully usable with other OS X apps (potentially InDesign, 
and/or some forthcoming Cocoa word processor)

I'm thinking either Adobe Minion or Garamond (both of which I like), but 
am not sure which version: OpenType?  Type 1 Expert?  MM?

Also, any chance Gerben's new installer will be able to make font 
installation easier for people like me?

Thanks in advance...

Bruce


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] Fonts included with Textures?
From: "Adrian Heathcote" <adrian.heathcote at philosophy.usyd.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:20:00 +1100


--Apple-Mail-2-320095145
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed

>>
Ross

>> The next question though is whether it is really necessary to convert
>> .pfa files to .pfb files since the latter are just packed versions of
>> the former and they need to be unpacked anyway every time they are sent
>> to the printer. (If .pfb files are really needed them it seems like a
>> mistake.)
>
> No. A binary format is necessarily smaller in size than an ascii format,
> since all the bits are significant, whereas this is not so for ascii 
> letters.
> Thus transmission times to the printer are generally reduced.
>
> Why do you think that the .pfb gets converted to .pfa before sending ?
> Which print-spoolers do that, and why ?

This is directly from the manual that accompanies the Lucida fonts: "The 
actual outline fonts themselves are in Printer Font Binary (PFB) form. 
PFB files are typically used on IBMPC compatibles, and are what the 
Windows PostScript driver and ATM expect to see. PFB files are compact, 
but need to be 'unpacked' into the more verbose hexadeimal PFA format 
before being sent to a postScript printer. Most applications that use 
Type 1 fonts can do this."

> It certainly isn't necessary, since a PostScript interpreter can read
> the binary form directly into its internal format.
> Similar it reads the (longer) ascii form directly into internals.
> There is no a priori reason why any ascii/binary conversion between
> the two forms needs to take place.
>
> Indeed, the binary form is more likely to be closer to the internal 
> format
> than is the ascii format.

Alan Hoenig, the author of TeX Unbound: LateX and TeX Strategies for 
Fonts, Graphics and More has said that his NexT/LateX set up deals 
directly with .pfa fonts---they do not need to be converted to .pfb.

My thought was: given that there is a fair bit of NexT legacy in OS X, 
it should not need .pfb outline formats either.

So Ross, can you clarify this? Is conversion necessary and if so why?

Having struggled with these font matters now for two weeks, I think it 
should all be reclassified as Necromancy.

Adrian Heathcote
>

--Apple-Mail-2-320095145
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=US-ASCII

<excerpt><excerpt>

</excerpt></excerpt>Ross


<excerpt><excerpt>The next question though is whether it is really
necessary to convert 

.pfa files to .pfb files since the latter are just packed versions of 

the former and they need to be unpacked anyway every time they are
sent 

to the printer. (If .pfb files are really needed them it seems like a 

mistake.)

</excerpt>

No. A binary format is necessarily smaller in size than an ascii
format,

since all the bits are significant, whereas this is not so for ascii
letters.

Thus transmission times to the printer are generally reduced.


Why do you think that the .pfb gets converted to .pfa before sending ?

Which print-spoolers do that, and why ?

</excerpt>

This is directly from the manual that accompanies the Lucida fonts:
"The actual outline fonts themselves are in Printer Font Binary (PFB)
form. PFB files are typically used on IBMPC compatibles, and are what
the Windows PostScript driver and ATM expect to see. PFB files are
compact, but need to be 'unpacked' into the more verbose hexadeimal
PFA format before being sent to a postScript printer. Most
applications that use Type 1 fonts can do this."


<excerpt>It certainly isn't necessary, since a PostScript interpreter
can read

the binary form directly into its internal format.

Similar it reads the (longer) ascii form directly into internals.

There is no a priori reason why any ascii/binary conversion between

the two forms needs to take place.


Indeed, the binary form is more likely to be closer to the internal
format

than is the ascii format.

</excerpt>

Alan Hoenig, the author of <italic>TeX Unbound: LateX and TeX
Strategies for Fonts, Graphics and More </italic>has said that his
NexT/LateX set up deals directly with .pfa fonts---they do not need to
be converted to .pfb. 


My thought was: given that there is a fair bit of NexT legacy in OS X,
it should not need .pfb outline formats either.


So Ross, can you clarify this? Is conversion necessary and if so why? 


Having struggled with these font matters now for two weeks, I think it
should all be reclassified as Necromancy.


Adrian Heathcote<italic>

</italic><excerpt>

</excerpt>
--Apple-Mail-2-320095145--


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] Two questions (documentation-related)
From: "Claus Gerhardt" <gerhardt at math.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 03:21:03 +0100

--============_-1194840395==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I experience the same problem as Martin, but, if I recall correctly, 
only after Locator incorporated the preview option which I use.

Both Locator, MacJanitor and the built in locate.updatedb script use 
the same database in /var/db/locate.database - if different databases 
would be used the problem wouldn't arise.

To be absolutely sure one should disable the preview option in 
Locator and try again.

Claus


>On March 27, Martin Stokhof writes:
>>  on my  PowerBook that isn't up 24/7. One of the tasks that's in
>>  MacJanitor' weekly script is to update the locate database. What
>>  happens is that after MacJanitor has done that, Locator can't find
>>  files anymore and needs to rebuild the database (which, as Locator
>>  warns, indeed takes quite some time). Is this a bug in MacJanitor?
>>  Locator?
>
>probably you have the fink new version of locate installed in /sw
>(rather than in /usr) which uses a different database. MacJanitor uses
>/usr/libexec/locate.updatedb
>To check which locate are you using, do a
>which locate
>cheers
>-- e.
>
>Enrico Franconi                     - franconi at cs.man.ac.uk
>University of Manchester            - http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~franconi/
>Department of Computer Science      - Phone: +44 (161) 275 6170
>Manchester M13 9PL, UK              - Fax:   +44 (161) 275 6204
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, send email to <info at email.esm.psu.edu> with
>"unsubscribe macosx-tex" (no quotes) in the body.
>For additional HELP, send email to <info at email.esm.psu.edu> with
>"help" (no quotes) in the body.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------


-- 


Claus Gerhardt
Institut f=FCr Angewandte Mathematik
Ruprecht-Karls-Universit=E4t Heidelberg
Im Neuenheimer Feld 294
69120 Heidelberg
Germany

Homepage: http://www.math.uni-heidelberg.de/studinfo/gerhardt/
--============_-1194840395==_ma============
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type=3D"text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
 --></style><title>Re: [OS X TeX] Two questions
(documentation-related)</title></head><body>
<div>I experience the same problem as Martin, but, if I recall
correctly, only after Locator incorporated the preview option which I
use.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Both Locator, MacJanitor and the built in<tt><font
color=3D"#000000"> locate.updatedb</font></tt> script use the same
database in<tt><font color=3D"#000000">
/var/db/locate.database</font></tt> - if different databases would be
used the problem wouldn't arise.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>To be absolutely sure one should disable the preview option in
Locator and try again.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Claus</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" cite>On March 27, Martin Stokhof writes:<br>
> on my  PowerBook that isn't up 24/7. One of the tasks that's
in<br>
> MacJanitor' weekly script is to update the locate database.
What<br>
> happens is that after MacJanitor has done that, Locator can't
find<br>
> files anymore and needs to rebuild the database (which, as
Locator<br>
> warns, indeed takes quite some time). Is this a bug in
MacJanitor?<br>
> Locator?<br>
<br>
probably you have the fink new version of locate installed in /sw<br>
(rather than in /usr) which uses a different database. MacJanitor
uses</blockquote>
<blockquote type=3D"cite" cite>/usr/libexec/locate.updatedb<br>
To check which locate are you using, do a<br>
which locate<br>
cheers<br>
-- e.<br>
<br>
Enrico
=46ranconi          <span
></span>           -
franconi at cs.man.ac.uk<br>
University of
Manchester         <span
></span>   - http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~franconi/<br>
Department of Computer Science      - Phone:
+44 (161) 275 6170<br>
Manchester M13 9PL,
UK           <span
></span>   - Fax:   +44 (161) 275 6204<br>
<br>
-----------------------------------------------------------------<br>
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send email to <info at email.esm.psu.edu> with<br>
"unsubscribe macosx-tex" (no quotes) in the body.<br>
=46or additional HELP, send email to <info at email.esm.psu.edu>
with<br>
"help" (no quotes) in the body.<br>
-----------------------------------------------------------------</blockquot=
e
>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<x-sigsep><pre>-- 
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div><br>
<br>
Claus Gerhardt<br>
Institut f=FCr Angewandte Mathematik<br>
Ruprecht-Karls-Universit=E4t Heidelberg<br>
Im Neuenheimer Feld 294<br>
69120 Heidelberg<br>
Germany<br>
<br>
Homepage: http://www.math.uni-heidelberg.de/studinfo/gerhardt/</div>
</body>
</html>
--============_-1194840395==_ma============--

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] Fonts included with Textures?
From: "Christopher B Hamlin" <chamlin at optonline.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:36:17 -0500


On Wednesday, March 27, 2002, at 06:40  AM, Ross Moore wrote:
>>>
>>
>> The next question though is whether it is really necessary to convert
>> .pfa files to .pfb files since the latter are just packed versions of
>> the former and they need to be unpacked anyway every time they are sent
>> to the printer. (If .pfb files are really needed them it seems like a
>> mistake.)
>
> No. A binary format is necessarily smaller in size than an ascii format,
> since all the bits are significant, whereas this is not so for ascii 
> letters.
> Thus transmission times to the printer are generally reduced.
>
> Why do you think that the .pfb gets converted to .pfa before sending ?
> Which print-spoolers do that, and why ?
> It certainly isn't necessary, since a PostScript interpreter can read
> the binary form directly into its internal format.
> Similar it reads the (longer) ascii form directly into internals.
> There is no a priori reason why any ascii/binary conversion between
> the two forms needs to take place.
>


   Are you talking about the eexec portion being binary in a pfb? This
seems to make sense, but I've always thought they had to be
decompressed too. Here is some text from Adobe's Tech
Note 5040 (downloadable fonts):

> 2 Downloadable Font Programs
>
> A downloadable font is an executable PostScript language program. In
> particular, it is an ASCII text file transmitted to the PostScript 
> interpreter; the
> file is executed by the interpreter as it is received.

...

>
> 3 Font File Formats
>
> A PostScript language font program should be a 7-bit ASCII data stream
> when it is sent to a PostScript interpreter. However, the programs are 
> not
> always stored this way on the host system. In environments where disk 
> space
> is a concern, the files are compressed by some scheme to reduce their 
> size
> on the host system, but they need to be de-compressed before they can be
> understood by a PostScript interpreter.
>

Ignoring any compression of the entire data stream, it seems they have to
be "pfa" format when sent, according to this. A quick skim through the
Red Book (3rd edition) didn't show anything (just a L3 StartData
command, but that's not pfb), but then again, that's a big book . . .



   Regards,

   Chris Hamlin


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] Two questions (documentation-related)
From: "Enrico Franconi" <franconi at cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:20:37 +0000

On March 28, Claus Gerhardt writes:
> I experience the same problem as Martin, but, if I recall correctly,
> only after Locator incorporated the preview option which I use.
> 
> Both Locator, MacJanitor and the built in locate.updatedb script use
> the same database in /var/db/locate.database - if different databases
> would be used the problem wouldn't arise.

Well, this is not the case of /sw/bin/locate which uses another
database, that's why is is worthwhile checking. If this turns out to
be your problem (maybe not), and you want to share the same database
among all the versions of locate, then put in your .cshrc

setenv LOCATE_PATH /var/db/locate.database

cheers
--e.

> >On March 27, Martin Stokhof writes:
> >>  on my PowerBook that isn't up 24/7. One of the tasks that's in
> >>  MacJanitor' weekly script is to update the locate database. What
> >>  happens is that after MacJanitor has done that, Locator can't
> >>  find files anymore and needs to rebuild the database (which, as
> >>  Locator warns, indeed takes quite some time). Is this a bug in
> >>  MacJanitor?  Locator?
> >
> >probably you have the fink new version of locate installed in /sw
> >(rather than in /usr) which uses a different database. MacJanitor uses
> >/usr/libexec/locate.updatedb
> >To check which locate are you using, do a
> >which locate

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: OzTeX 5.0a and xypic
From: "Andrew Trevorrow" <andrew at trevorrow.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 23:35:39 +1100

> Ah-ha. (newbie question): teTeX -which I have installed on OSX many
> times... does not install on OS9, correct?

Gerben's installer only runs on OS X, but having installed teTeX you
*can* access its texmf tree from OS 9.  For how to do it from OzTeX
see ":TeX:Configs:Use texmf tree" in the 5.0a release.

> Also, didn't/doesn't xy-pic come with OzTeX 4?

It's on the OzTeX CD, but not in the download version.
If you get the CD (visit http://www.trevorrow.com/oztex/ozcd.html
for ordering info) then see :texmf:source:generic:xypic:install.OzTeX-CD
for how to install Xy-pic with OzTeX 4.  I haven't updated that doc
yet but I doubt much will change for OzTeX 5.

XY-pic will also be on the new CD, along with the fixed XY fonts
mentioned by Michael.

Andrew

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
From: "Gerben Wierda" <sherlock at rna.nl>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:00:28 +0100

Dear everybody,

I am happy to announce the release of a new TeX/gs release and a new 
generic installer-mechanism. I have also released an update of the old 
installer.


New TeX Release Mechanism

The new TeX distribution mechanism is called i-Installer. i-Installer is 
a internet-aware installer program for Mac OS X. It can install 
i-Packages, update/load them from the internet. It can also be used as a 
dedicated i-Installer, where the i-Packages to install are part of the 
application. See http://www.rna.nl/ii.html for details.

For you TeX people, it is more interesting to know what all of this 
means for installing TeX. Installing with the dedicated TeX i-Installer 
has a few advantages:
- It is easy to choose a different ghostscript. Just open the right URL 
*with i-Installer* (http://www.ntg.nl/macosx-tex/i-packages/gs7.ii), and 
you can install GhostScript 7 instead of the default 6.01.
- It is easy to update only parts of an installation. You do not need to 
download and install the whole 50 MB, you can select to install just 
what you want (choice of TeX Foundation (40MB, updated less frequently), 
TeX Programs (6MB, updated more often) or GhostScript (6.01, updated 
almost never)
- It will be easier to produce specialized i-Installer i-Packages for 
stuff like CM-super and other additions. i-Packages may even just 
configure stuff instead of also download stuff. I can produce small 
update packages, if there are small bugfixes.
- You can inspect the contents of i-Packages, and especially inspect 
what the i-Package does on your system. Apart from running those 
scripts, which may or may not be available in an i-Package, i-Installer 
only unarchives an archive (and maintains a cache if necessary and 
writes a time stamp file for every installed i-Package).
- i-Packages come with their own Help information, and dedicated 
i-Installers (like the one for TeX and GhostScript) come with an overall 
Info file for the set of i-Packages which is automatically displayed at 
launch time.

So, where to get it? The best way is to go through 
http://www.rna.nl/tex.html. This explains the various TeX distribution 
methods and has links for dmg volumes. There are two i-Installer TeX/gs 
releases:

- TeX-thin.dmg is a 0.9MB volume that holds a thinned i-Installer for 
TeX/gs. That means that it has everything on board, except the actual 
archives. It will download these when needed. To be able to download 
stuff, it needs to be on a writable location; the volume it ships on is 
read-only, so I can trust it's content (for support purposes). 
Therefore, before you can install with the thinned dedicated 
i-Installer, you need to drag it to a writable location, e.g. your 
Desktop. During installation, the i-Installer will fatten itself. Once 
you have installed everything in it, it is equivalent to the fat 
i-installler. You can save it (say to a CD) and use it later again to 
get the same result.

- TeX-fat.dmg is a 51MB volume that holds a full i-Installer for TeX/gs. 
It can be installed directly from the read-only volume, but for 
updating, it needs a writable location, just like the thin installer.

If you already have a TeX installation from installing with 
TeXGSInstaller (from March), you can just update by installing just the 
TeX Programs i-Package. That means you only need a 6MB download (as 
opposed to a 50MB download) and it is best to download the thin volume.


New old-style TeXGSInstaller release

Since there is a bit of a lack of competition in non-unix-geek TeX 
installations, I decided to compete with myself ;-) In other words: I 
have also updated the old style monolithic TeXGSInstaller. The 
'chunkyness' of the output is gone. The package is called TeX.dmg. The 
best way is to go through http://www.rna.nl/tex.html and take one of the 
links there.


Finally,

Both old-style and new-style installers have the same TeX installation 
on board: TeX Live Programs from March 24 (with additions), teTeX texmf 
tree from the end of january (with additions).

The available i-Packages are currently located at the Web Site of the 
Dutch TeX User Group. The connection sto this site are untested. During 
beta stage, there were some problems when the site used for beta testing 
was limiting user access. This leads to stalling downloads in 
i-Installer (and no message to my app, so there is nothing I can do 
about it), but it is safe to just abort the download and start again. 
Start again, is not the same as continue, there is no support for 
continuing aborted downloads.

i-Installer web site: http://www.rna.nl/ii.html
TeX distribution web site: http://www.rna.nl/tex.html

G


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fonts &c. (was Re: [OS X TeX] Fonts included with Textures?)
From: "William Adams" <wadams at atlis.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 07:59:53 -0500

Adrian said:
 >Alan Hoenig, the author of TeX Unbound: LateX and TeX Strategies for 
Fonts, Graphics and More >has said that his NexT/LateX set up deals 
directly with .pfa fonts---they do not need to be >converted to .pfb.

One of the advantages of Display PostScript.

 >My thought was: given that there is a fair bit of NexT legacy in OS X, it 
should not need .pfb >outline formats either.

There's an Apple technical note which details which fonts Mac OS X can use,
  and NeXT's nifty .font bundles are _not_ a part of that. (nor are 
Multiple Master fonts)

Google's second hit on a search of ``Apple Mac OS X supported font format'
'

http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn2024.html

Although Windows TrueType TTF / TTC fonts are supported, the only Type 1 
fonts which Mac OS X makes use of are Type 1 (presumably Mac-style LWFN) 
with matching bitmap font suitcases.

I'll spare everyone my rant about how this backwards compatibility has 
cost us the sensible, font Fontname entry derived names.

Naturally tetex, since it uses its own routines will find .pfa ASCII 
encoded fonts more efficient (the binary encoding is actually encrypting 
done by the eexec routine so as to copy-protect Adobe's fonts back when 
they denied anyone else the privilege of making such (everyone else had to 
make do with Type 3, and if they wanted hinting, had to roll their own in 
PostScript)) for the reasons already mentioned in the Fonts w/ Textures 
thread.

Bruce then asked:
 >Can someone (William?) recommend a good font to invest in that:

 >a) a unix idiot (me) can easily set up for use with pdftex
 >b) will be fully usable with other OS X apps (potentially InDesign, 
and/or some forthcoming >Cocoa word processor)

 >I'm thinking either Adobe Minion or Garamond (both of which I like), but 
am not sure which >version: OpenType?  Type 1 Expert?  MM?

Unfortunately Type 1 OpenType fonts don't work with pdftex, only TrueType 
based outlines do at this time, and without the nifty fonttable support to 
enable contextual ligatures &c.

As I mentioned above, Multiple Master is right out until Apple restores 
that functionality (which NeXTstep had, without effort on Adobe's part 
'cause an MM font is ``just'' a PostScript Program).

How do you feel about the eponymous Hoefler Text? Jonathan Hoefler has 
since made a Type 1 version available from his website, 
<http://www.typography.com> which should install easily in tetex (get the 
PC version with matching .afm files and no resource forks to mung this up)
, one could then use the Apple version in Mac OS X proper, and the Type 1 
in TeX (one person on this list has manually converted the Apple font, but 
that probably wouldn't sit well with Apple if a lot of people started 
doing it or passing it around :(

Has anyone else tried contacting the programmer of TeX/GX? I'd dearly love 
to see a pdftex variant on Mac OS X which could directly use ATSUI fonts 
(for those who haven't, install the Developer tools, (free with on-line 
ADC membership)) and play around with ``WorldText.app'' (nee  
GXWrite)---if you think TextEdit's automatic ligatures are nice, ``you ain'
t seen nothin' yet''

William
(who has been working on a typeface design for eight years now but hasn't 
yet finished it :(

--
William Adams, publishing specialist
voice - 717-731-6707 | Fax - 717-731-6708
www.atlis.com


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fonts &c. (was Re: [OS X TeX] Fonts included with Textures?)
From: "Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus at mac.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:04:33 -0500


On Thursday, March 28, 2002, at 07:59  AM, William Adams wrote:

> How do you feel about the eponymous Hoefler Text? Jonathan Hoefler has 
> since made a Type 1 version available from his website, 
> <http://www.typography.com> which should install easily in tetex (get 
> the PC version with matching .afm files and no resource forks to mung 
> this up)
> , one could then use the Apple version in Mac OS X proper, and the Type 
> 1 in TeX (one person on this list has manually converted the Apple 
> font, but that probably wouldn't sit well with Apple if a lot of people 
> started doing it or passing it around :(

I actually do like Hoefler, and I would like to use it in TeX.  I heard 
the Type 1 version is something like $300.  I can't afford to spend that 
kind of money on a font, nor do I think I should need to given it's 
installed on my OS.  What am I missing?

And how can I find out about converting Hoefler for use in TeX :-).

Bruce


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fonts &c. (was Re: [OS X TeX] Fonts included with Textures?)
From: "Adrian Heathcote" <adrian.heathcote at philosophy.usyd.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 02:29:35 +1100

I fear this response muddies some already muddy water. The issue was 
simple: do Macs' normal .pfa outline fonts work in teTeX or do they need 
to be converted to .pfb? It is a simple question which should have a 
simple answer.

Adrian Heathcote


On Thursday, March 28, 2002, at 11:59 PM, William Adams wrote:

> Adrian said:
> >Alan Hoenig, the author of TeX Unbound: LateX and TeX Strategies for 
> Fonts, Graphics and More >has said that his NexT/LateX set up deals 
> directly with .pfa fonts---they do not need to be >converted to .pfb.
>
> One of the advantages of Display PostScript.
>
> >My thought was: given that there is a fair bit of NexT legacy in OS X, 
> it should not need .pfb >outline formats either.
>
> There's an Apple technical note which details which fonts Mac OS X can 
> use,
>  and NeXT's nifty .font bundles are _not_ a part of that. (nor are 
> Multiple Master fonts)
>
> Google's second hit on a search of ``Apple Mac OS X supported font 
> format'
> '
>
> http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn2024.html
>
> Although Windows TrueType TTF / TTC fonts are supported, the only Type 
> 1 fonts which Mac OS X makes use of are Type 1 (presumably Mac-style 
> LWFN) with matching bitmap font suitcases.
>
> I'll spare everyone my rant about how this backwards compatibility has 
> cost us the sensible, font Fontname entry derived names.
>
> Naturally tetex, since it uses its own routines will find .pfa ASCII 
> encoded fonts more efficient (the binary encoding is actually 
> encrypting done by the eexec routine so as to copy-protect Adobe's 
> fonts back when they denied anyone else the privilege of making such 
> (everyone else had to make do with Type 3, and if they wanted hinting, 
> had to roll their own in PostScript)) for the reasons already mentioned 
> in the Fonts w/ Textures thread.
>
> Bruce then asked:
> >Can someone (William?) recommend a good font to invest in that:
>
> >a) a unix idiot (me) can easily set up for use with pdftex
> >b) will be fully usable with other OS X apps (potentially InDesign, 
> and/or some forthcoming >Cocoa word processor)
>
> >I'm thinking either Adobe Minion or Garamond (both of which I like), 
> but am not sure which >version: OpenType?  Type 1 Expert?  MM?
>
> Unfortunately Type 1 OpenType fonts don't work with pdftex, only 
> TrueType based outlines do at this time, and without the nifty 
> fonttable support to enable contextual ligatures &c.
>
> As I mentioned above, Multiple Master is right out until Apple restores 
> that functionality (which NeXTstep had, without effort on Adobe's part 
> 'cause an MM font is ``just'' a PostScript Program).
>
> How do you feel about the eponymous Hoefler Text? Jonathan Hoefler has 
> since made a Type 1 version available from his website, 
> <http://www.typography.com> which should install easily in tetex (get 
> the PC version with matching .afm files and no resource forks to mung 
> this up)
> , one could then use the Apple version in Mac OS X proper, and the Type 
> 1 in TeX (one person on this list has manually converted the Apple 
> font, but that probably wouldn't sit well with Apple if a lot of people 
> started doing it or passing it around :(
>
> Has anyone else tried contacting the programmer of TeX/GX? I'd dearly 
> love to see a pdftex variant on Mac OS X which could directly use ATSUI 
> fonts (for those who haven't, install the Developer tools, (free with 
> on-line ADC membership)) and play around with ``WorldText.app'' (nee  
> GXWrite)---if you think TextEdit's automatic ligatures are nice, ``you 
> ain'
> t seen nothin' yet''
>
> William
> (who has been working on a typeface design for eight years now but 
> hasn't yet finished it :(
>
> --
> William Adams, publishing specialist
> voice - 717-731-6707 | Fax - 717-731-6708
> www.atlis.com
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, send email to <info at email.esm.psu.edu> with
> "unsubscribe macosx-tex" (no quotes) in the body.

> For additional HELP, send email to <info at email.esm.psu.edu> with
> "help" (no quotes) in the body.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fonts &c. (was Re: [OS X TeX] Fonts included with Textures?)
From: "mark" <markds at mac.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:31:52 +0100

Been quietly following this thread. Interesting.

Could we maybe get on to Apple about some of these font issues.
I'd like to use some of the pre-installed OS X fonts in my TeX
work (e.g. Optima and Gill Sans). Maybe Apple's licensing of the
fonts means that they could also supply the fonts in the forms we
need for TeX work. Anybody know ?

mark.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
From: "Gérard Degrez" <degrez at vki.ac.be>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:34:32 +0100

>If you already have a TeX installation from installing with 
>TeXGSInstaller (from March), you can just update by installing just 
>the TeX Programs i-Package. That means you only need a 6MB download 
>(as opposed to a 50MB download) and it is best to download the thin 
>volume.

I downloaded the TeXGSInstaller from March and installed it but, 
strangely enough, it seems that I am still running the June 2001 
LaTeX (see console output herebelow). Any idea of what went wrong? 
(Or maybe I understood wrong)
This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159-1.00b-pretest-20020211 (Web2C 7.3.7)
(./exercices5.tex{/Users/grarddeg/Library/texmf/pdftex/config/pdftex.cfg}
LaTeX2e <2001/06/01>

Gérard Degrez

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fonts &c. (was Re: [OS X TeX] Fonts included with Textures?)
From: "William Adams" <wadams at atlis.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:39:53 -0500

Adrian asked:
>I fear this response muddies some already muddy water. The issue was
>simple: do Macs' normal .pfa outline fonts work in teTeX or do they
need
>to be converted to .pfb?

Macs don't have ``normal .pfa outline fonts'', but funky, ``LWFN'' fonts
which are hidden away in the resource fork so that one can't open them
up with a standard text editor. I forget the specific details of whether
or no they're ASCII.

>It is a simple question which should have a
>simple answer.

You should use the extant tools (as bundled with OzTeX, or CMacTeX) for
converting LWFN files to a format which makes sense on platforms which
aren't burdened by a proprietary resource-fork oriented filesystem. Said
tools also automagically convert to .pfa presumably, if not, check with
Frank Siegert at www.wizards.de/~frank and see if he's ported his font
conversion utility.

William

--
William Adams, publishing specialist
ATLIS Graphics & Design / 717-731-6707 voice / 717-731-6708 fax
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
http://www.atlis.com



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [pdftex] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
From: "Oscar Chávez" <oc918 at mizzou.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:00:19 -0600

I just installed 10 days ago TeXShop and teTex. I really don't know if I 
want anything different, as it is it works perfectly for me. Should I 
upgrade? If so, what installer should I use? Should I simply install again,
  and the old installation will be overwritten?

Oscar Chávez


On Thursday, March 28, 2002, at 07:00 AM, Gerben Wierda wrote:

> I am happy to announce the release of a new TeX/gs release and a new
> generic installer-mechanism. I have also released an update of the old
> installer.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
From: "Gerben Wierda" <sherlock at rna.nl>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:14:17 +0100

On Thursday, March 28, 2002, at 04:34 , Gérard Degrez wrote:

> I downloaded the TeXGSInstaller from March and installed it but,
> strangely enough, it seems that I am still running the June 2001
> LaTeX (see console output herebelow). Any idea of what went wrong?

Nothing, I guess. This is the version of LATeX that is part of the 
latest teTeX's texmf tree (TeX Foundation)


G


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] Re: [pdftex] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
From: "Gerben Wierda" <sherlock at rna.nl>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:12:39 +0100

On Thursday, March 28, 2002, at 05:00 , Oscar Chávez wrote:

> I just installed 10 days ago TeXShop and teTex. I really don't know if 
> I want anything different, as it is it works perfectly for me. Should I 
> upgrade? If so, what installer should I use? Should I simply install 
> again,
>  and the old installation will be overwritten?

No need to install everything again. Never fix something that is not 
broken.

G


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
From: "Gérard Degrez" <degrez at vki.ac.be>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:31:44 +0100

>On Thursday, March 28, 2002, at 04:34 , Gérard Degrez wrote:
>
>>I downloaded the TeXGSInstaller from March and installed it but,
>>strangely enough, it seems that I am still running the June 2001
>>LaTeX (see console output herebelow). Any idea of what went wrong?
>
>Nothing, I guess. This is the version of LATeX that is part of the 
>latest teTeX's texmf tree (TeX Foundation)

OK, I misunderstood. I thought TeX Live from March 12th, 2002 would 
include the January 2002 version.

Gérard Degrez

>There is a new TeX release at ftp://ftp.nluug.nl/pub/comp/macosx
>
>Changes:
>	TeX Live from March 12, 2002
>	Added symbolic link for nehyph2.tex

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
From: "Gerben Wierda" <sherlock at rna.nl>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:45:08 +0100

On Thursday, March 28, 2002, at 05:31 , Gérard Degrez wrote:

> OK, I misunderstood. I thought TeX Live from March 12th, 2002 would
> include the January 2002 version.

It is TeX Live *binaries* from March. It is teTeX texmf from Jan 29.

G


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fonts &c. (was Re: [OS X TeX] Fonts included with Textures?)
From: "Peter Erwin" <erwin at ll.iac.es>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:29:02 +0000

William Adams said:
>Adrian asked:
>>I fear this response muddies some already muddy water. The issue was
>>simple: do Macs' normal .pfa outline fonts work in teTeX or do they
>need
>>to be converted to .pfb?
>
>Macs don't have ``normal .pfa outline fonts'', but funky, ``LWFN'' fonts
>which are hidden away in the resource fork so that one can't open them
>up with a standard text editor. I forget the specific details of whether
>or no they're ASCII.
>
>>It is a simple question which should have a
>>simple answer.

If by "normal .pfa outline fonts" you mean -- as William pointed out -- the
"LWFN" font files, then the answer is, put simply:

    No.  They need to be converted to .pfb

(From what other people have said, it appears that .pfa format may work as
well, but I haven't tried it.  All the PostScript fonts which come with teTeX
appear to be in .pfb format, and the various .map files that dvips --- and thus
pdftex as well, I believe --- assume .pfb format.  So the default 
format seems to be
.pfb.  Since it's relatively easy to convert between the two formats using the
"t1utils" programs (see below), I'd just stick with .pfb unless 
there's a compelling
reason to use .pfa.)

>You should use the extant tools (as bundled with OzTeX, or CMacTeX) for
>converting LWFN files to a format which makes sense on platforms which
>aren't burdened by a proprietary resource-fork oriented filesystem. Said
>tools also automagically convert to .pfa presumably, if not, check with
>Frank Siegert at www.wizards.de/~frank and see if he's ported his font
>conversion utility.

The necessary tools are actually part of the teTeX installation, though they're
command-line only and thus less friendly than, say, the CMacTeX versions.
They can convert back and forth between .pfa and .pfb, *and* they can
convert Macintosh (LWFN) font files to *either* pfa *or* pfb.  Here's
an example of how to use them.  I'll use the MathTime "MTEX" font (which
I got in Mac format from Blue Sky) as an example, but it could be anything.

First, make a copy of the font file and convert it to BinHex or MacBinary, or
similar format (see the man page for "t1unmac" to see what it accepts).
You can also operate on the "raw" resource fork, which can be generated from
the font file so:

% cp MTEX/rsrc mtex.rsrc

(That's right, "filename/rsrc" will extract the resource fork from a 
Macintosh file.
This is a bit of a hack -- I've read that this feature may not survive in
future versions of MacOS X, but there are other command-line utilities which
can extract resource forks; this is just the simplest I'm aware of.)

Then use the "t1unmac" program -- part of the teTeX installation -- to generate
a pfa or pfb file ("man t1unmac" to learn more about it):

% t1unmac --pfb --raw mtex.rsrc mtex.pfb

or, e.g.

% t1unmac --pfb MTEX.hqx mtex.pfa

(using "--pfa" instead of "--pfb" generates .pfa versions)

    -- Peter
-- 
=============================================================
Peter Erwin                   Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias
erwin at ll.iac.es               C/ Via Lactea s/n
tel. +34 922 605 244          38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Fonts &c. (was Re: [OS X TeX] Fonts included with Textures?)
From: "William Adams" <wadams at atlis.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:39:28 -0500

Peter Erwin said:
>(From what other people have said, it appears that .pfa format may work
as
>well, but I haven't tried it.  All the PostScript fonts which come with
teTeX
>appear to be in .pfb format, and the various .map files that dvips ---
and thus
>pdftex as well, I believe --- assume .pfb format.  So the default
>format seems to be
>.pfb.  Since it's relatively easy to convert between the two formats
using the
>"t1utils" programs (see below), I'd just stick with .pfb unless
>there's a compelling
>reason to use .pfa)

Once upon a time it was felt that there was a compelling reason to use
.pfb---saving disk space---this belike seems quaint in the days of 100GB
HDs, but, given that it's pick and choose what gets included on TeXLive
(and NeXTstep binaries no longer rate :( that's a valid consideration
for at least the source / archive sites.

<snip> helpful and precise description of command line conversion

William

--
William Adams, publishing specialist
ATLIS Graphics & Design / 717-731-6707 voice / 717-731-6708 fax
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
http://www.atlis.com



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: OzTeX 5.0a and Acrobat (Distiller?)
From: <get86 at mac.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:30:36 -0500

Can I configure OzTeX5.0a to use Distiller (or Acrobat) from OzTeX?
Please point to where or tell me what to configure!

Thanks in Advance,
Ted


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Got it! Re: [OS X TeX] OzTeX 5.0a and Acrobat (Distiller?)
From: <get86 at mac.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:45:17 -0500

Got It!

Thanks for being there.

(sorry)


On Thursday, March 28, 2002, at 02:30  PM, get86 at mac.com wrote:

> Can I configure OzTeX5.0a to use Distiller (or Acrobat) from OzTeX?
> Please point to where or tell me what to configure!
>
> Thanks in Advance,
> Ted
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, send email to <info at email.esm.psu.edu> with
> "unsubscribe macosx-tex" (no quotes) in the body.
> For additional HELP, send email to <info at email.esm.psu.edu> with
> "help" (no quotes) in the body.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
From: "Gary L. Gray" <gray at engr.psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:50:20 -0500

On 3/28/02 8:00 AM, "Gerben Wierda" <sherlock at rna.nl> wrote:

> I am happy to announce the release of a new TeX/gs release and a new
> generic installer-mechanism. I have also released an update of the old
> installer.

[snip]

> For you TeX people, it is more interesting to know what all of this
> means for installing TeX. Installing with the dedicated TeX i-Installer
> has a few advantages:
> - It is easy to choose a different ghostscript. Just open the right URL
> *with i-Installer* (http://www.ntg.nl/macosx-tex/i-packages/gs7.ii), and
> you can install GhostScript 7 instead of the default 6.01.

Now that Gerben has released a new version of his installer that allows me
to use GS 7, I guess it is time to ask the following question:

  Why are we not using GS 7 now and why is it necessary to use GS 6?

The reason I ask is that there is a "bug" in GS 6 when it needs to convert a
and EPS with a gradient to PDF. See:

<http://www.ghostscript.com/pipermail/gs-code-review/2001-May/000661.html>

for information on this bug. The bottom line is that GS 6 is very slow at
handling radial gradients, which I use a lot. I would love to move to GS 7,
but I am nervous that something important will break. I recall a thread
relating to this previously, but I was unable to find it. Insights are
appreciated.

All the best,

-- Gary


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
From: "Gerben Wierda" <sherlock at rna.nl>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:14:12 +0100

On Thursday, March 28, 2002, at 08:50 , Gary L. Gray wrote:

>   Why are we not using GS 7 now and why is it necessary to use GS 6?

There is a bug in Quartz which is triggered by later versions of gs. It 
has to do with multiple fonts of different types and the result is that 
one of th etypes of fonts is not displayed. Have a look at 
ftp://ftp.nluug.nl/pub/comp/macosx/info/doublefonttest-fail.pdf and 
display it with either Preview or Acrobat.

G


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
From: "Gerben Wierda" <sherlock at rna.nl>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:23:02 +0100

On Thursday, March 28, 2002, at 05:31 , Gérard Degrez wrote:

> OK, I misunderstood. I thought TeX Live from March 12th, 2002 would
> include the January 2002 version.

Has there actually been a Jan/2002 version? Because I have been told 
that the LATeX team has moved to a yearly schedule, so the next one 
after June 2001 will be June 2002.

G


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
From: "Gary L. Gray" <gray at engr.psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:33:31 -0500

On 3/28/02 3:14 PM, "Gerben Wierda" <sherlock at rna.nl> wrote:

> On Thursday, March 28, 2002, at 08:50 , Gary L. Gray wrote:
> 
>>   Why are we not using GS 7 now and why is it necessary to use GS 6?
> 
> There is a bug in Quartz which is triggered by later versions of gs. It
> has to do with multiple fonts of different types and the result is that
> one of th etypes of fonts is not displayed. Have a look at
> ftp://ftp.nluug.nl/pub/comp/macosx/info/doublefonttest-fail.pdf and
> display it with either Preview or Acrobat.

Is there a work-around for this or should we stick with GS 6? What can we do
to get Apple to fix this? I know it is possible to submit bug reports, but
it would be nice to know exactly what to tell them.

-- Gary


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
From: "Philippe Lelédy" <phl at leledy.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 22:08:05 +0100


Le jeudi 28 mars 2002, à 02:00 PM, Gerben Wierda a écrit :

> Dear everybody,
>
> I am happy to announce the release of a new TeX/gs release and a new 
> generic installer-mechanism.

I was very glad to populate my new PB-Ti with this release.

Thanks and congratulations.

I enjoy also iTeXMac (for which I found that Latin1 Charset is more 
convenient for us, non english people, than the default MacOS Roman)

Next step CM-Super (yet installed, thanks to the list, on a previous 
computer).

In a whole, I find that GB's TeX + XF402 + Fink make MacOS X a 
marvellous system.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] Fonts included with Textures?
From: "Ross Moore" <ross at ics.mq.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:10:39 +1100 (EST)


Hi Adrian,

> >>
> Ross
> 
> > Why do you think that the .pfb gets converted to .pfa before sending ?
> > Which print-spoolers do that, and why ?
 
Thanks for this quote; I had not seen it before:

> This is directly from the manual that accompanies the Lucida fonts: "The 
> actual outline fonts themselves are in Printer Font Binary (PFB) form. 
> PFB files are typically used on IBMPC compatibles, and are what the 
> Windows PostScript driver and ATM expect to see. PFB files are compact, 
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think this is the most relevant phrase.

Remember that we are creating PDF files.
These need to be read by PDF readers, such as Adobe's Acrobat and relatives.
These presumably use technology similar to ATM.
So if ATM prefers .pfb then it makes sense to use .pfb inside PDF files.

That is exactly what pdfTeX does.

Indeed, pdfTeX does not like .pfa fonts at all, in my experience.
This may be seen as a deficiency of pdfTeX, but that's the way it is
at present, so I believe.


> but need to be 'unpacked' into the more verbose hexadeimal PFA format 
> before being sent to a postScript printer. Most applications that use 
> Type 1 fonts can do this."

The point is that being sent to a printer is not the *only* use,
nor indeed need be the primary use, of PDF files created with TeXshop.
Distribution on the web, and showing correctly within other people's
browsers, is a much more significant use, subject to un untold number
of vagaries related to transmission and what platform the unknown surfer
is using.
Any extra cycles burnt locally on your powerful Mac, to uncompress .pfb
into .pfa for transmission on the local network, is surely of little
significance in practical terms.


> 
> > There is no a priori reason why any ascii/binary conversion between
> > the two forms needs to take place.
> >
> > Indeed, the binary form is more likely to be closer to the internal 
> > format
> > than is the ascii format.
> 
> Alan Hoenig, the author of TeX Unbound: LateX and TeX Strategies for 
> Fonts, Graphics and More has said that his NexT/LateX set up deals 
> directly with .pfa fonts---they do not need to be converted to .pfb.

Yes; that's easy to do.
You just use a different .map file for print jobs, than for PDF jobs.
It's quite normal to do this with  teTeX .


This is done with configuration files for  dvips .
e.g. we have a printer here called  math .
I have config files named  config.math  and  psfonts.math  .

These files are read, when using   dvips -Pmath  <filename>.dvi


In fact, since my default printer is  $PRINTER='math' , then I get this
automatically with  dvips .

The file  psfonts.math  lists the font files such as  CMR10.pfa, etc.
whereas  pdfTeX  reads  cm.map  with names  cmr10.pfb, etc. .

As an aside...

There was a time when we had a hard-drive attached directly to the printer.
This had *all* the CM fonts stored for easy access.
Then, the file  psfonts.math  did not have any filenames at all.
It just listed the fontnames:  CMR5, CMR7, CMR10, etc.
This had the effect of omitting the fonts entirely from dvips files,
directed to the printer. It was not necessary to include the fonts,
as the printer already had them. The question of .pfa or .pfb  was
not relevant, as the printer had full control of getting the fonts
from its local hard-drive. 

Nowadays, printers are faster, have more RAM, and do not come with
expensive SCSI connectors. So this technique is no longer used;
every job needs to include all of its own fonts.
Evidently it can still be done, using flash-RAM, but that's expensive
for little practical gain.



> My thought was: given that there is a fair bit of NexT legacy in OS X, 
> it should not need .pfb outline formats either.

The issue is not local to MacOS X.
It's a matter of what is practical for the PDFs that you produce.

> 
> So Ross, can you clarify this? Is conversion necessary and if so why?

I think you want .pfb files, because that is what pdfTeX can handle,
and that's best for Acrobat (Reader).

 
> Having struggled with these font matters now for two weeks, I think it 
> should all be reclassified as Necromancy.

That's a good word for it!


Cheers,

	Ross

 
> Adrian Heathcote
> >


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] GS 6 and 7 and Apple Bug
From: "Richard Koch" <koch at math.uoregon.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:04:17 -0800


--Apple-Mail-3-394752225
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed

Folks,

On Thursday, March 28, 2002, at 12:33  PM, Gary L. Gray wrote:

Is there a work-around for this or should we stick with GS 6? What can 
we do
to get Apple to fix this? I know it is possible to submit bug reports, 
but
it would be nice to know exactly what to tell them.

	Gary

-------------

There is a bug in Apple's NSPDFImageRep class. Because of
the bug, pdf files created by converting a postscript file to pdf with
ghostscript 7 will be displayed with most characters missing. The
problem does not occur if the conversion is done with ghostscript 6.
Both versions of ghostscript create pdf files which display correctly
in Adobe Acrobat, so the problem is rather in Apple's class.
This class is used by the Finder, Preview, Mail, TeXShop,
and other programs.

TeXShop users who typeset with the latex + ghostscript
option must install ghostscript 6 rather than ghostscript 7 because of
the bug.

Another aspect of the bug can be seen by downloading pdf preprints
from the preprint archive http://xxx.lanl.gov/. These files display 
incorrectly
in Preview, but correctly in Acrobat.

Apple was notified of this bug last July and again last October. I
just wrote them again. Bug reports from other users will be
helpful.

Dick
koch at math.uoregon.edu

--Apple-Mail-3-394752225
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=US-ASCII

Folks,


On Thursday, March 28, 2002, at 12:33  PM, Gary L. Gray wrote:


<color><param>0000,0000,DEDE</param>Is there a work-around for this or
should we stick with GS 6? What can we do

to get Apple to fix this? I know it is possible to submit bug reports,
but

it would be nice to know exactly what to tell them.


	Gary


-------------

</color>

There is a bug in Apple's NSPDFImageRep class. Because of

the bug, pdf files created by converting a postscript file to pdf with

ghostscript 7 will be displayed with most characters missing. The

problem does not occur if the conversion is done with ghostscript 6.

Both versions of ghostscript create pdf files which display correctly

in Adobe Acrobat, so the problem is rather in Apple's class.

This class is used by the Finder, Preview, Mail, TeXShop, 

and other programs. 


TeXShop users who typeset with the latex + ghostscript

option must install ghostscript 6 rather than ghostscript 7 because of

the bug.


Another aspect of the bug can be seen by downloading pdf preprints

from the preprint archive http://xxx.lanl.gov/. These files display
incorrectly

in Preview, but correctly in Acrobat.


Apple was notified of this bug last July and again last October. I

just wrote them again. Bug reports from other users will be

helpful. 


Dick

koch at math.uoregon.edu


--Apple-Mail-3-394752225--


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: [OS X TeX] ANNOUNCE: New TeX/gs releases for Mac OS X
From: "Michel Bovani" <michel.bovani at wanadoo.fr>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 00:37:54 +0100

Le 28/03/02 21:23, « Gerben Wierda » <sherlock at rna.nl> a écrit :

> On Thursday, March 28, 2002, at 05:31 , Gérard Degrez wrote:
> 
>> OK, I misunderstood. I thought TeX Live from March 12th, 2002 would
>> include the January 2002 version.
> 
> Has there actually been a Jan/2002 version? Because I have been told
> that the LATeX team has moved to a yearly schedule, so the next one
> after June 2001 will be June 2002.

You are right...

See texmf/source/latex/base/ltnews13.tex


%%%%%%%%%%
\documentclass
%    [lw35fonts]     % uncomment this line to get Palatino
   {ltnews}[2000/07/21]

% \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}

\publicationmonth{June}
\publicationyear{2000}
\publicationissue{13}


\begin{document}

\maketitle

\raisefirstsection 
\section{Yearly release cycle}

We announced in \textit{\LaTeX{} News~11} that we intended to switch
to a 12-monthly release schedule.  With the present (June~2000)
release, this switch is being made: thus the next release of \LaTeX{}
will be dated June~2001.  We shall of course continue, as in the past,
to release patches as needed to fix significant bugs.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%


-- 
Michel Bovani



----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of MacOSX-TeX Digest

-----------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send email to <info at email.esm.psu.edu> with
"unsubscribe macosx-tex" (no quotes) in the body.
For additional HELP, send email to <info at email.esm.psu.edu> with
"help" (no quotes) in the body.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


More information about the macostex-archives mailing list