Re: [Groff] Musings on the adding of fonts

[P. Alejandro Lopez-Valencia]

At 06:51 p.m. 26/02/2002 +0100, Sigfrid Lundberg, NetLab wrote:


> 2. Then I tried some TrueType fonts, and software (the freetype library,
> pfaedit, autotrace and the like). Pfaedit is not even version 1 yet, but
> still very useful. To get the font metrics for a truetype font is a piece
> of cake. To get a type 1 font out of it is also OK. But where is the
> kerning table? Any pointer to info on kerning and ttf would be much
> appreciated!

The kerning table is not where you imagine... As it is an integral part of 
the font, you need a dedicated tool to get at it. The best procedure to 
obtain the needed AFM metrics file from a truetype font is to either use 
ttf2afm (part of the ttf2pk utilities set) or using ttftopt1, which you can 
find at Sourceforge. The latter tools will generate good Type 1 fonts 
(6.5-8 in a scale of 10) from the TTF files, including AFMs in the vector 
encoding of your choice.

> Another experience: Obviously, ttf, the more modern technology, is capable
> of handling 16 bit encodings.

The use of monolithic 16-bit fonts is overrated. If you have ever seen 
Arial Unicode, is is exactly 24.131.012 bytes in my Win32 system and it is 
*not* a complete Unicode 2.1 font. (Unicode has already released version 
3.5 of the standard and Unicode 4 will be out pretty soon). As well, 
TrueType is highly overrated as a technology, unless you consider that 
superior is a technology that only five highly paid engineers in the world 
really understand and can use it properly (and I said engineers, not 
designers; the only great living type designer with a great technical 
background I am aware of is Charles Bigelow --- who holds a professorship 
at Stanford). That's why in general (and I mean 99.9%) of all fonts out 
there in TrueType format are pieces of bullknit.

As a matter of fact, and as a consequence of using OpenType technology as 
the core font engine, Windows XP doesn't use monolithic 16-bit unicode 
fonts, but rather TrueType collections, (TTC fonts) that appear as one 
single huge font but in reality are directory indexes for a bunch of small 
(perhaps no more than 500 glyph) hidden fonts that can be either TrueType 
or Type 2 (CFF PS) fonts.

> This might not be a big deal, since pfaedit
> can presumably split the font, and groff handle "virtual" fonts built from
> pfa-pieces. A pointer on this issue, as well please.

Amateur mistake: You don't use a font editor to split a font! It is the 
same as using a chain saw to remove your car axel, just because you are too 
lazy to  find a garage where they can lift it and dismount it with a good 
set of pneumatic nut screws. Or the same as pretending that a whisky on ice 
is whisky.


> 4. Adding fonts to devdvi is equally simple. I've always been very fond of
> the computer modern fonts. Now, having read about pdftex, I found
> references on how to translate .mf into type 1. TuGboat seam to have a who
> series of articles on this, published between late 80ties and now. I've
> read a handful of them, including one on how to create type1 fonts more or
> less directly using metapost. This is feasible for production of new
> fonts. To do so for existing ones is impossible, it seems.

Because they were not designed to produce outlines but strokes. And there 
is the problem of cleaning up the superimposed shapes into one clean 
outline. People like Richard Kinch (of TrueTeX fame) who earns his living 
carrying around his authority on Bezier curves, hasn't been able to develop 
an algorithm that can do it cleanly. Now, fonts designed to use MFPS or 
RoPS are a different matter, see for example the QXCM font family available 
at CTAN.


--
Alejandro López-Valencia
http://dradul.tripod.com/
[...] every cultured man is a theologician, and to be so
faith isn't needed. (J.L. Borges)