xmlgraphics-fop-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Tremblay <phthe...@earthlink.net>
Subject Re: Where to download high-quality fonts
Date Sun, 06 Jun 2004 06:38:55 GMT
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 02:44:39PM +1000, Peter B. West wrote:
> 
> Paul,
> 
> The files I am talking about come from the links on the AMS page - 
> http://www.ams.org/tex/type1-fonts.html
> 
> I have downloaded the unix and the pc font sets.  The unix set comes 
> with only pfb and afm files, in the pfb and afm directories 
> respectively.  The pc download contains afm and fonts directories.  The 
> afm directory contains afm files, and the fonts directory contains pfb 
> files and the pfmfiles directory.  In the latter directory are the pfm 
> files.
> 
> The afm files are text files, while the pfms are binary.  Try using the 
> pfm files from the pc distribution with PFMReader.
> 
> General questions to font gurus. Can we generate font metrics for FOP 
> directly from the AFM files?  Do AFM and PFM files contain equivalent 
> information?
> 

Thanks for the feedback. I get the same error working with these files
as I do when working with the * /pub/tex/psfonts/cm fonts. I first
convert the fonts to pfm with a utilty called afm2pfm. I get a
segmentation error. I then convert the pfm file to an xml metrics file
using the java tool. I get no errors.

But when I use the font to produce a PDF file, I get a full page break
after each block of text.

It is unfortunate that the ghostscript and the commputer modern fonts
have something non-standard with them. They are nice fonts and the
creators went through a lot of effort to produce them. 

As I said before, I think we need more standardization with fonts. 
I believe a font could be expressed as an XML file, which could be
validated. This XML file could be used to then produce afm or pfb or
whatever type of fonts a particular application needs. As it stands
right now, fonts were not developed according to a standard, as xsl-fo
was. This results in the mess I have been struggling with the past few
days, and a lot of wasted effort on the part of developers and users.

It is a good question on whether AFM contain the same information as PFM
files. From what I've read, it seems that the AFM is the ascii
equivelent of the binary PFM.

Paul

-- 

************************
*Paul Tremblay         *
*phthenry@earthlink.net*
************************

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-user-help@xml.apache.org


Mime
View raw message