[vox-tech] LaTeX, DVI, PDF, LaTeX, fonts - HELP!

[Henry House]

--EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 08:10:08PM -0700, Shawn P. Neugebauer wrote:
[...]
> > I have seen this. I suspect Acrobat too. All versions of Acrobat that I
> > have seen fail to properly implement Type 3 bitmap fonts to Adobe's own
> > spec. DVI files converted to Postscript or PDF use such bitmap fonts.
>=20
> I don't think this is correct.  For example, I used the "times" package
> (see my other reply) in a latex source file, generated a DVI file, then
> used dvipdf to create a PDF.  Looking at the font information inside
> Acrobat reader indicates that, indeed, Type 1 PS fonts are being used.
> If math symbols are used, there will be a Type 3 font for that, but this
> font too can be replaced by a PS font (see my other reply).

You are quite right; I was speaking of the normal case in which the document
is set in Computer Modern fonts.

[...]
> > Try:
> > 	* Using pfdlatex instead of latex to typeset the documents. The output
> > 	  will be in PDF format, so no DVI->PDF conversion will be necessary. =
If I
> > 	  am not mistaken, pdflatex always uses the Blue Sky type 1 versions of
> > 	  Computer Mondern rather than the bitmap originals. (It always does o=
n my
> > 	  system.) One way to check this is by running pdf2ps on the pdflatex
> > 	  output and inspecting the postscript code in an editor. You will see=
 the
> > 	  fonts impedded and may analyse them.
>=20
> This is a good idea.  Acrobat can also be used to check the font informat=
ion,
> given the PDF file.  pdflatex is a front-end to pdftex, which is distinct=
 from
> dvipdf; dvipdf is just a front-end to dvips.

Another idea: on my system (Debian testing, others with recent TeTeX should
support), adding '-Pcmz -Pamz' to the command line arguments of DVIPS will
substitute the Blue Sky type 1 fonts for standard nitmapped Computer Modern.

> > 	* Using pslatex instead of latex; output will be DVI but using the
> > 	  standard postscript fonts, which every PDF viewer and every printer
> > 	  driver support perfectly. The typographic quality will be degraded, =
so
> > 	  try the previous suggestion first.
>=20
> I have to mention that only *PS* printers and associated drivers should be
> expected to handle such output "perfectly."  Even then, there are problems
> (e.g., MS-word-generated PS files often do not print on my Lexmark T612,
> a very standard PS printer).  also, pslatex is a short script front-end to
> latex. if the "times" package is being used, pslatex shouldn't make a
> difference in the end problem.

AFAIK either using the "times" package or substituting the pslatex command
for latex have equivalent effects. As for handling matters "perfectly", I am
referring only to fonts. There is no shortage of apps and drivers that do n=
ot
work together, despite both nominally handling postscript code. But I should
be very suprised to find a printer driver or printout-producing application
that chokes on Abobe Times or Helvetica ;-).

I am very interested in testing the techiques that have been mentioned on
this thread to determine which produce the most portable PDFs, and what
versions of the TeX programs are required. (I am not in a position to do so,
lacking any Windows machines or non-postscript printers.) Does anyone wish =
to
volunteer?

--=20
Henry House
The attached file is a digital signature. See <http://romana.hajhouse.org/p=
gp>
for information.  My OpenPGP key: <http://romana.hajhouse.org/hajhouse.asc>.

--EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8wd9kKK1cAVjXujwRAmPPAJ9cgit8Z42c/jwPbEx7qh0evL811gCgt1+I
+jpYJKUvInZ1PggvLXsH+qY=
=pBCm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm--