[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Hin-Tak Leung
Subject: Re: [cjk] texlive svn write access Fw: Re: revisiting ttf2tfm and dvipdfmx
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 09:27:47 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 SeaMonkey/2.17.1

Peter Breitenlohner wrote:
in the meantime I have seen that 00030000 and 00000000 are actually treated
somewhat differently in (x)dvipdfmx,

That's been my point all along - 00000000 should be treated as 00030000 in most usage cases, but not. In fact most unknown post-versions should be treated as 00030000 and continue, rather than abort.

> thus this could cause a segfault.

I had asked if they abort silently or first give a (warning or error)

segfault is with ttf2tfm . pdftex and dvipdfmx both warn then abort.

Here I have expressed my personal opinion.  Since (some of) the programs
work around some other problems caused by broken fonts they should perhaps
also handle this case.

The whole point of ttf2tfm/ttf2pk is trying to make new fonts available to TeX.

Not everybody has the money, time, effort, or know-hows to buy new fonts, buy new alternatives, the incentive or the know-how to edit a font for non-compliance to spec. There are a lot of non-compliant fonts out there, many of them useful to some extent, to somebody.

If you are not trying to make unfamiliar typefaces available to TeX, you probably should not be the one working on ttf2tfm/ttf2pk or rewriting them,
at all.

OK, I'll try that.  But not using Windows I may have problems to extract the
actual font file from mikachanALL.exe.

I am fairly sure I did not extract it with windows - I wasn't using windows much or ever, even 10 years ago. It probably is extractable with unzip, or one of the other tools of a similar category on linux.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]