[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Announce -- updated Type 1 versions of fonts
- To: taco.hoekwater@wkap.nl
- Subject: Re: Announce -- updated Type 1 versions of fonts
- From: Ulrik Vieth <vieth@thphy.uni-duesseldorf.de>
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 15:18:34 +0200
- Cc: math-font-discuss@cogs.susx.ac.uk, metafont@ens.fr, pdftex@tug.org
Taco Hoekwater writes:
> I just uploaded 4 zipfiles to dante.de:
> wasy2.zip
> rsfs.zip
> stmaryrd.zip
> logo.zip
> The zips contain updates of the converted Type 1 (PostScript) outlines
> of the respective fonts (version 1.001, various bugfixes)
> Included are: rsfs{5,7,10}
> wasy{5,7,10,b10}
> stmary{5,7,10}
> logo{8,9,10,bf10,sl10} /* with P and S */
Hi Taco,
thank you very much for your work, especially for the new logo fonts.
Speaking as the maintainer of the "mflogo" LaTeX package, I welcome
the addition of freely-available logo fonts in Type 1 format, but
I'm a little worried about the fact that the logo font set still
remains a little incomplete, lacking the logo{sl8,sl9,d10} shapes.
Two questions:
a) what to do about logo{sl8,sl9}?
Since these are slanted versions, i.e. transformations of the
upright version logo{8,9}, I suppose it should be possible to
get away by faking them with "0.25 SlantFont" in psfonts.map
and pdftex.map, so there's no real problem about their absence.
Of course, it would be nice to have them as real fonts, but
we can work around this with a suitable map file (see below).
b) what to do about logod10?
Since this is a demibold version, which is not only narrower,
but also lighter than logobf10, it is not possible to fake it.
The best we probably could do is to approximate the metrics
by a condensed version of logobf10 with "0.913 ExtendFont"
(ratio of 21/23 determined from the METAFONT sources), but
this is only a quick and dirty hack as a stop-gap solution.
Would it be too much to ask you about adding logod10 as well,
or should I consider adding a pdftex option to mflogo.sty,
so as to use a different version of ulogo.fd in that case?
Given the simplicity of the design of the MF logo, I suppose
the conversion shouldn't be too difficult, or am I mistaken?
Cheers, Ulrik.
Suggested psfonts.map / pdftex.map file entries follow:
logo8 LOGO8 <logo8.pfb
logo9 LOGO9 <logo9.pfb
logo10 LOGO10 <logo10.pfb
logosl8 LOGO8 ".25 SlantFont" <logo8.pfb
logosl9 LOGO9 ".25 SlantFont" <logo9.pfb
logosl10 LOGO10 ".25 SlantFont" <logo10.pfb
logobf10 LOGOBF10 <logobf10.pfb
## HACK: weight unchanged, but width adjusted:
logod10 LOGOBF10 ".913 ExtendFont" <logobf10.pfb