[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: urg.

From: Werner LEMBERG
Subject: Re: urg.
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:09:05 +0100 (CET)

> > I vote for that.  It has the additional advantage that you still
> > have both PS and PDF output with a single backend in case you use
> > GS.  Regarding fontconfig I suggest you contact the GS people for
> > assistance -- I can imagine that other people have similar needs,
> > and maybe a proper solution already exists.
> This would be a nice hack. It would also solve the huge amount of
> diskspace necessary for building the web docs. Unfortunately, I
> don't think we have enough clout to force an upgrade of GhostScript
> everywhere within the next 2 months.

lilypond needs a lot of external resources, so why not demand a recent
version of gs too?  Before diving into font issues I strongly
recommend to take the easy route of letting gs do the work.  Later on
you still can implement font handling code.

AFAIK, PDF documents can directly refer to external fonts.  I think
that gs has the ability to convert such files into self-contained
documents which contain all fonts (properly subsetted).  So if you
prefer you can try to code directly in PDF without struggling with
font issues right now.


reply via email to

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