[tex-live] urw once again (and pfm)

Staszek Wawrykiewicz staw at gust.org.pl
Sat Jun 7 05:54:43 CEST 2003

On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Vladimir Volovich wrote:

> hm... it's generally better to use PFB+AFM+INF for installing the
> type1 fonts under windows, rather than PFB+PFM, since PFM is just the
> cut version of AFM+INF, and PFM doesn't contain any information about
> glyphs not present in the default encoding. From AFM+INF, it is
> possible to generate the PFM for any system locale.

You are right, but... for average windows user it is too complicated ;-}
Any advanced user should know that (and *have* proper tools).

> So it seems that having AFM+INF files on CD is better than PFM files:
> the latter are of limited usage.

Quite of all Type1 fonts distributed on CTAN and TL doesn't have .inf 
files at all. Only very few.
> Then, would we move AFM and INF to the same directories as PFB? i
> guess, no...

Still compromise: *usability* in the TeX environment. AFM files are
sometimes needed for TeX related programs (afm2tfm, ps2pk, etc.)

Staszek Wawrykiewicz
StaW at gust.org.pl

More information about the tex-live mailing list