[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [cjk] output with source han and xdvipdfmx

From: Amigo Aleman
Subject: Re: [cjk] output with source han and xdvipdfmx
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 19:16:08 +0200

Hallo Hin-Tak,

concerning the Noto - Han Source relationship the Wikipedia under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_Han_Sans writes even more explicitely: "The Source Han Sans font family was also released under the names Noto Sans CJK JP, Noto Sans CJK  KR, Noto Sans CJK SC, Noto Sans CJK TC by Google as part of its Noto fonts family." I don't know much more about that -- but that convinced me, that Noto and Source Han were the same?

Normally I am not overly anxious about technical conversation, being an engineer myself, ...but that grew a bit too complicated for my state of knowledge... ;-)))

I have neither experience with LuaTeX nor with XeTeX, but that would be no problem. My problem is simply the heavy use of psfrag in about 250 diagrams. 

That means, that either the complete document or 250 parts with one diagram each stick with good old LaTeX. I habe other document weiten complete in PDFLaTeX, where a switch to Lua- or XeTeX would be easy -- but there I don't need foreign signs... ;-)))

As I understand, for the non-English parts in my document, generated with dvips, one can not search and not copy. That is not nice...

But as only a handful of characters is concerned,  I am willing to accept that for the possibility of further using psfrag...

And now, I regret, I have to stop and enter my weekend activities...


Am 02.06.2017 18:10 schrieb "Hin-Tak Leung" <address@hidden>:
I am a bit confused about the Adobe Source Han <-> Noto Fonts relationship. I think there is a good degree of co-operation, but Adobe and Google both have their own little ideas (not least branding and visibility) so the two fonts share a lot but not identical.

Some of this thread has gone into a bit of overly technical discussion (which you can ignore). Let me try to give a somewhat biased summary of the various alternatives of using custom fonts for Latex documents.

1. If you are doing new documents, and do not have a lot of baggages and opinion about how Latex *should* work, LuaTeX and XeTeX can both access arbitrary platform fonts. I have no experience with LuaTeX; I tried XeTeX, and found the change in layout, word-breaks, hyphenations unfamilar. Yes, I think even if you stick to Computer Modern Roman, you'll need to learn new ways of doing those things. However, if you are writing a new document in LaTeX and needs to do a lot of languages or a lot of different fonts, those are the ways to go for flexible handling of fonts, and other typographic features of non-English.

2. If you have a lot of baggages, i.e. extending an old LaTeX document with new paragraphs in a new language/fonts, besides setting up dvips, there are two other ways of targeting pdf. pdfTeX and dvipdfmx. So in 2003 I went in that direction, and wrote it up, in a file called
"cjk/doc/pdfhowto/HOWTO.txt" (it is part of the CJK documentation and it should be in your hard disk if you are using TexLive), which covers mostly dvipdfmx and a bit on pdfTeX also. More below.

2a. The main difference between going through postscript with dvips ->ps2pdf vs directly to pdf via pdfTeX/dvipdfmx is graphics. If you need psfrag or any of the latex packages which depends on running through ghostscript, then you have to use the former. However, the latter has a numbers of advantages: the pdf format itself suppports direct embedding of tif, png, gif, and also, pdf itself has an object model, so also a pdf page as graphics also, and with that transparent graphics as well. A traditional dvips workflow only supports eps as graphics, and involves converting all of these into such (and losing transparency in png, for example) either explicitly or behind the scene.

2b. There are a number of differences between pdfTeX and dvipdfmx - the former has a larger (more English-speaking) community, and the latter was/is run by a smaller number of Korean people. One of the explicit goals of the latter is preserving text-searchability. i.e. pdf's from dvipdfmx preserves encoding information, and you can extract non-english text, cut-and-paste from it (the same applies to the modern XeTeX/LuaTeX output also), have its content indexed by a Google's search engine, etc. Whereas non-English dvips/ps2pdf and pdfTeX generated pdf's loses encoding information and loses the full compatability of being indexed by a search-engine.

3. When I wrote "cjk/doc/pdfhowto/HOWTO.txt" in 2003 I mostly wrote for usage of typesetting localized text for localized proprietary fonts. Around 2013/2014 I revisited it (possibly because I had a new computer), most of it had stood the text of time and still useful in 2014, but it was still very much get-your-hand-dirty and developer-oriented. We discussed a number of upcoming changes in TeXLive then - many of the tools were being migrated away from FreeType 1 (which had not been updated for nearly 20 years) - which would have made life a lot easier; the changes in TeXLive seems to have completed since. Things have indeed gone easlier; It is due a re-write, so I guess I should update it.

4. So this little thread uncovers another interesting differences between the three: dvips needs postscript type 1 fonts; pdfTeX still cannot use the other font index in a ttc.

5. I'll like to make all of them work again, so I'll possibly try to get dvips and pdfTex to work also; personally I am leaning on dvipdfmx as it lets me use the font as is (sharing with platform-viewing) without going whole-sale the XeTeX/LuaTeX way.

On Fri, 2/6/17, Thorsten <address@hidden> wrote:

 Hello Werner, hello Hin-Tak,

 I am a bit in a hurry leaving
 for work, so only a few lines:

 * "Noto Serif CJK is a rebadged version of
 Source Han Serif" says https
 ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noto_fonts, so they
 should be the same I

 * The Hanazono font is
 japanese, as I try to write Chinese text, I
 would rather like to stay with a Chinese font,
 if possible. And if you
 are right, my
 problem seems to be not missing glyphs in the original
 font, but some mistake in my installation

 * If I look to the
 state of the discussion on the list, I feel like a
 layman listening to a discussion of experts...
 not understanding
 much... ;-))) I only hope,
 that in the end there will be a way I

 * I am visiting my sister's 25th
 anniversary of her wedding over the
 so I have to apologize, that I am not quite sure, in how far
 manage to do further experiments or
 respond to emails during this

 Thank you for all effort you
 invest into my problem!


reply via email to

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