mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

["Juan Pablo Romero" <address@hidden>]

When I began using texmacs this was one thing I found funny, ie. why not use 
type1 fonts?. This would eliminate the lapse texmacs spends generating most 
fonts right now.

However, I got used to it and I'm a happy texmacs user now.


Regards.


 Juan Pablo

> From: Jan Ulrich Hasecke <address@hidden>
> Reply-To: address@hidden
> To: Javier Arantegui <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Realase dates and pdf
> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 11:24:09 +0100
>
> Javier Arantegui <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > "The standard TeX fonts are Computer Modern Fonts. By default, dvips
> > creates PS files that use bitmap Computer Modern Fonts. Such a PS file
> > looks fine in print, but looks ugly on screen. The reason is that
> > bitmap fonts are used instead of Adobe Type 1 outline fonts (like the
> > Apple/Microsoft TrueType fonts).
> >
> > When such a PS file is converted to a PDF file, the resluting PDF file
> > will have the same problem -- poor display quality on screen, but good
> > quality in print. The reason is that, bitmap fonts are converted to
> > Adobe Type 3 fonts in converting to PDF, and Acrobat displays Type 3
> > fonts in very poor quality on screen. "
>
> Is it possible to use ae-fonts or cm-super-fonts in TeXmacs?
>
> I wrote a book with ae-fonts and emacs/pdflatex which looks nice in
> print and on screen.
>
> Ciao!
> juh
>
> --
> Schlachtet die Unschuldslämmer!
> http://www.sudelbuch.de/2001/20010206.html


_________________________________________________________________
MSN. Más Útil Cada Día http://www.msn.es/intmap/