mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[Ralf Juengling <address@hidden>]

To have not Type 3 fonts in pdfs seems to be a requirement not only at my university. I have found questions by other students on the subject and from what I learned so far I think there is a lot of false information out there.

At first there was the claim that the Type 3 fonts were missing in my document, i.e., that they were "not embedded" in the pdf. I think the reason some people come to this conclusion is that Adobe software (Reader and Acrobat) does not show them explicitly as embedded when listing a pdf's fonts. According to the PDF Reference Type 3 fonts are always embedded, however. A pdf missing the font definition of a Type 3 font it is using is simply not a valid pdf.

Then there was the claim that some screen viewers and printers render Type 3 fonts poorly. I believe this is confusing Type 3 fonts with "bitmapped" fonts (as opposed to outline or postscript fonts). They are not the same concept. If you want to embed a bitmapped font---which is already rasterized for a particular device resolution---into a pdf, your best option it to embed it as a Type 3 font (because Type 3 fonts essentially let's you embed images, Type 1 fonts are more restricted). Apparently, for many years tex/latex distributions have by default embedded CM fonts as bitmapped fonts into the produced ps and pdfs. As this has become the most frequent use case for Type 3 fonts in pdfs, it has led some people to believe that Type 3 fonts are always bitmapped fonts.

The office at my university responsible for setting and enforcing document standards for theses still insists that there be no Type 3 fonts in pdfs, but I never learned the reasons. If someone knows a good reason why having Type 3 outline fonts in a pdf is a bad idea, please let me know.

Ralf

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Massimiliano Gubinelli <address@hidden> wrote:

Ralf,

 in the latest TeXmacs from svn the pdf and ps generation are independent. So they could produce different output. Can you try to export directly in PDF and then check (for example via acrobat) if Type 3 fonts are still present. In general they are due to some mathematical symbols. You will recognize them easily if you look at the generated output at medium/small magnification since they look somewhat blurred with respect to the other glyphs.

best

max

On 15 mars 2014, at 18:08, Ralf Juengling <address@hidden> wrote:

I have run into another font problem: The postscript or pdf file exported from my texmacs file contains Type 3 fonts, which the publisher says is not allowed. Looking at the postscript source this appears to be coming from a postscript macro 'TeXDict'.

Could someone understanding the export machinery help me here? I have checked the exported pdfs from a number of smaller texmacs files and they don't contain Type 3 fonts. What might it be in the document at issue, that causes the TeXDict macro to be used?
 

Relatedly, does anyone know a tool that could help me find the text or symbols set in a Type 3 font?

Thanks,
Ralf

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Joris van der Hoeven <address@hidden> wrote:

Hi Ralf,

On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 10:08:55AM -0800, Ralf Juengling wrote:
> You can reproduce the problem with the attached file.
> The pdf TeXmacs 1.0.7.19 creates from it (also attached) uses three fonts.
> The last one ("Helvetica") is not embedded in the pdf.

Please try with the latest version of TeXmacs; we have been working a lot on Pdf generation.
Both Max' native converter and the old converter (enabled from the preferences)
might produce better results.

Best wishes, --Joris

> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:57 AM, François Poulain <address@hidden>wrote:
> > Hi Ralf,
> > Le Wed, 5 Feb 2014 08:39:42 -0800 (PST),
> > Ralf Juengling <address@hidden> a écrit :
> >
> > > I used TeXmacs 1.0.7.19 to produce a PDF which does not include
> > > all the fonts.
> >
> > Could you please send a TeXmacs document which disclose this bug?
> >
> > François