Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

[Ken Sharp]

At 16:29 19/09/2017 +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:


> This is next to impossible.  lilypond has knowledge for good music
> typography, while TeX has knowledge for good text typography.  I read
> your suggestion that lilypond should do everything, i.e., both text
> and music layout, but this won't happen, for obvious reasons.

Umm no, I was suggesting (since as I understand it, this is for production 
of manuals) that the bulk of the manual be in TeX, and the bits where you 
need to show Lilypond should be EPS. However, its possible I'm (again) 
mis-understanding the purpose here. Jet lag is causing serious confusion 
today :-(


> In other words, we have to co-operate with TeX somehow – output from
> lilypond must be included into TeX documents.

Right, EPS or even PDF since Lilypond can't suffer from the font problem, 
at least not if it uses Ghostscript to produce its PDF.


> > Your problem with multiple fonts pretty much exhibits that; once
> > you've got the PDF file, a layout engine can't tell that all the
> > fonts are the same.  Ghostscript can't either, which is why it now
> > doesn't strip the duplicates out.
>
> But our pipeline *guarantees* that the fonts are identical (basically
> by disabling font subsetting)!

Well, that's a pretty unique workflow. Of course, if you didn't disable 
font subsetting the included multiple fonts would be much smaller anyway.


>   This is something we can completely
> control, and for such a use-case we would like to have forthcoming
> versions of ghostscript be able to do what it did previously.

See previous replies on this subject.



                    ken