Re: [cjk] texlive svn write access Fw: Re: revisiting ttf2tfm and dvipdfmx

[Peter Breitenlohner]

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:

> > > - the post table issue is in pdftex/dvipdfmx/xdvidpdfmx (see below). Very
> > >   old fonts use 00000000 but really should be treated as 00030000 (which
> > >   is basically no post table).

Hi Hin-Tak,

I'd rather say:
      ...................... but really should have 00030000 (no post table).

I really don't see a reason to keep broken font files.

> > dvipdfmx/xdvidpdfmx do just that but produce a warning (as they should, 
> > such
> > fonts should be fixed).  Not so sure about pdftex/luatex/xetex, still have
> > to look what they do (if anything).
>
> All of them do an abort.

Does 'all' mean pdftex/luatex/xetex or as well dvipdfmx/xdvidpdfmx?

Does the abort give an error message stating the reason?

> Not everybody should be required to use a hex editor to modify a "not-needed" 
> byte in some 15-yr-old fonts to use them.

I don't agree at all.  Everybody should either throw away these broken font
files or get them fixed (with a hex editor or otherwise).

Regards
Peter