Re: Notes for DDP writers
On Sun, Feb 14, 1999 at 12:30:46AM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> PostScript is inherently resolution dependant and non-portable. I
> suggest PDF, which is smaller and more likely to be viewable by all.
Uh? PostScript is a programming language that can express everything
in a resolution-independent manner. It has powerful graphics
primitives for drawing scalable pictures. Its Type 1 fonts use a
restricted version of this language and are scalable by nature. PDF
is PostScript with display steroids and without some of the more
dangerous programming constructs. Unless I'm severely mistaken (I
usually am not in these matters), PostScript is *not* *inherently*
resolution-dependent and unportable. Its very design aims were the
Of course, TeX-produced PostScript is sometimes resolution-dependent.
This is because TeX uses often Metafont, which is a font rasterizer
with more powerful programming constructs than PostScript Type 1.
Sadly, conversion from Metafont to Postscript Type 1 is very
nontrivial and no such converter exists in public to my
knowledge. I've heard rumours that one TeX vendor has such a beast for
in-house use, but of course it wouldn't be free even if it were
All TeX documents that use Metafont fonts result in
resolution-dependent PostScript. A TeX document which does not use
Metafont at all will most likely be resolution-independent.
Computer Modern (TeX default)
European Computer Modern (TeX default for European languages)
(and many more)
PostScript Type 1 fonts:
Times, Palatino, ... (all the usual resident fonts)
Computer Modern (this is a convert from Metafont)
European Modern (non-free)
(and many more)
> It is so absurd and upsetting to me to hear talk about this group,
> which is already so overworked and understaffed, to try to go about
> and document this stuff.
I had the impression that Tapio is volunteering at least for some of
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % email@example.com % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
EMACS, n.: Emacs May Allow Customised Screwups