Hello CJK guys, At Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:34:59 +0800, ha shao wrote: > > Hmm... Some how I missed the original mail. > > On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 05:12:44PM -0700, foka@debian.org wrote: > > I was digging through the fonts.dir that the CLE (Chinese GNU/Linux > > Extension Project) use, and found a slightly different version. > > I have made some slight modification (to capitalize the font names so they > > look better. :-) I have attached it here as an .tar.bz2 archive. > > I prefer CLE's fonts.dir over the ones that ha shao suggested, although I am > > pretty sure that we may need to tweak those CLE fonts.dir even further, when > > the details of Ghostscript-CJK and fonts are finalized. > > > > Yes, the changes are better. But only the normal font has the correct > font encoding (GB-EUC). Others are still in GB as the same as the wrong > encoding in my original fonts.dir. I did not test the abiword printing > at the time cause GS-CJK was not announce yet then. Now we can test > CJK printing too. I took a look at ha shao's fonts.dir and Anthony's, and got some weird impressions. Maybe it is due to my less knowledge about Chinese, so please point out what i'm misunderstanding. First about Anthony's. CJK PostScript font names generally consist of fontname and CMap name. CMap name represents charset, encoding and direction of font. Usually only one CMap name is supported for each language by each application. But Anthony's fonts.dir for zh-CN have two sorts of CMaps in PostScript font names: GB-EUC-H and GB-H. The former stands for GB2312 charset in EUC encoding, while the latter stands for GB2312 charset in ISO2022 encoding. I cannot think abiword supports PostScript output in different encodings for a single charset because there's no clue for abiword to detect which encoding should be used for the output. ha shao seems to adopt GBK-H as CMap name for both GB2312 and Big5. GBK-H is not defined by Adobe as CMap name in Adobe-GB1 or Adobe-CNS1 character collections, so GS-CJK i'm preparing cannot handle it. If GBK-H is a sort of mistyping of GBK-EUC-H, which defined by Adobe as CMap name in Adobe-GB1 character collection, it is not suited for Big5 PostScript printing. I understand GBK charset includes only Simplified Chinese characters. In addition, ZenKai-Medium lacks CMap name, so GS-CJK would never handle it either. BTW, all these worries would be gone away if defoma was accepted. It can automatically set available CJK PostScript fonts and correspondent XLFDs appropriately. (I've already realized something like that in tgif. Tgif in my computer has all the available PostScript fonts including CJK ones in a font-selection menu without no manual editting of Resource file. Correspondent XLFDs are automatically set for each of the fonts. I announced that at debian-devel with test packages, but haven't got any responce about that :/) > GS-CJK. He told me that the PS fontname fetched from Arphic's TTF is > 'GBZenKai' for typeface kai. So maybe we will use the GBZenKai for > Kai font or add aliases in GS-CJK to link Arphic-KaiGB-GB-EUC-H with > /GBZenKai-Medium-GBK-EUC-H. Yes, GBZenKai-Medium is the PostScript font name of one of the Arphic TTFs. I doubt GB-EUC-H can substitute for GBK-EUC-H. Regards, -- Yasuhiro Take aka hirot / <take@debian.org>
Attachment:
pgpf_m7NVrYri.pgp
Description: PGP signature