Re: psnfss and lw35nfss

["Berthold K.P. Horn" <bkph@ai.mit.edu>]

   Concernant « Re: psnfss and lw35nfss », Berthold K.P. Horn écrit :
    > By the way, I don't think I like the qualification that font support
    > is only for fonts with AFM files.  It should be fonts for which TFMs

   you remember we're discussing PSnfss?

Yes, which is LaTeX 2e support for *fonts*.  The fact that it is called
`PS'NFSS is a unfortunate --- just as it is unfortunate that Type 1 fonts
are called `PostScript' fonts in the TeX world (*).  There is no problem
for example writing `PSNFSS' support for TrueType fonts.

All that TeX or LaTex care about are TFMs, so as long as you can 
get the font's metrics and have a DVI driver (previewer or printer)
you should be able to use such fonts. 

(*) So called `PS' fonts (i) do not require a PS interpreter for
rasterization, and in fact (ii) the best rasterizers are not those in PS
interpreters.  Also, (iii) there are two layers of encryption and 
(iv) a numeric encoding at the bottom, which if you wish you can rewrite 
in pseudo PS (or Forth if you like), but (v) it contains instructions like 
SEAC, HSBW, VSTEM3, CALLSUBR, ENDCHAR etc that don't look like PS to me
and then it has instructions that do sort of look like PS but aren't quite, 
like hvcurveto, rrcurveto, and so on.  Most improtantly, (vi) the implicit
`fill' operator in Type 1 is totally different from the `top level'
user accessible `fill' operator.  For a start it implements drop-out
control and `erosion'. 

Of course on a platform where the only way to use ATM fonts is with
a PS interpreters you may see things differently :=)