[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Texmacs-dev] http://www.texmacs.org/Data/TeXmacs.pdf

From: bump
Subject: Re: [Texmacs-dev] http://www.texmacs.org/Data/TeXmacs.pdf
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 07:28:00 -0700

> > Well, I'm not Joris :o), but what I usually do is convert the file to
> > LaTeX, then
> >
> > pdflatex filename.tex
> That is what happened here; in fact I used the pdf file from
> the proceedings...

This is not a very satisfactory solution since the LaTeX
must often be tweaked, extensively for a book length 
manuscript, and the results are never identical or even
sufficiently similar to the postscript files created by
TeXmacs. By this method (using latex) it cannot be said
that TeXmacs is being used for typesetting. The beautiful
postscript files TeXmacs creates are wasted, because they
contain Type 3 fonts and cannot be used for camera ready

A publisher's technical guy told me that to work from a
postscript file it needs embed and subsetted Type 1 fonts,
and after he examined them he did not like the .ps files
created by TeXmacs because they use Type 3 fonts. My
understanding is that Adobe software (Distiller) does not
work correctly with Type 3 fonts for publishing applications.

On April 7, David Allouche wrote:

> But we acknowledge that the broken AcroRead is the standard
> so we plan to fix the font issue soon (a few monthes from
> now). Indeed, using Type1 fonts (when available) when
> exporting to PostScript will likely be a first step
> towards PDF.


I think this is an important problem, and fixing it may be
important for the adoption of TeXmacs.

Daniel Bump

reply via email to

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