Last I knew, all they would do (on the screen) was make for an ugly screen, as we haven't had a decent Type-1 font renderer....
Anyone have any knowledge of anything current that uses type-1 on the screen? On paper? - Jim
2008/9/3 Jim Gettys jg@laptop.org:
Last I knew, all they would do (on the screen) was make for an ugly screen, as we haven't had a decent Type-1 font renderer....
Anyone have any knowledge of anything current that uses type-1 on the screen? On paper? - Jim
Many proprietary fonts are only available in Type 1 format (with licenses that permit private format conversion, eg Adobe) and they remain dominant in the print end of the graphic design industry.
I guess free programs that cater to print-end graphic designers - Scribus especially, and Inkscape too - would have users making use of Type 1 fonts a lot.
I'm specifically talking about the type-1 fonts in the distribution; I wasn't planning to pull the renderer itself.
Specifically the package: xorg-x11-fonts-Type1 - Jim
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 20:34 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote:
2008/9/3 Jim Gettys jg@laptop.org:
Last I knew, all they would do (on the screen) was make for an ugly screen, as we haven't had a decent Type-1 font renderer....
Anyone have any knowledge of anything current that uses type-1 on the screen? On paper? - Jim
Many proprietary fonts are only available in Type 1 format (with licenses that permit private format conversion, eg Adobe) and they remain dominant in the print end of the graphic design industry.
I guess free programs that cater to print-end graphic designers - Scribus especially, and Inkscape too - would have users making use of Type 1 fonts a lot.
Le mercredi 03 septembre 2008 à 15:50 -0400, Jim Gettys a écrit :
I'm specifically talking about the type-1 fonts in the distribution; I wasn't planning to pull the renderer itself.
Specifically the package: xorg-x11-fonts-Type1
I don't think anything really depends on this one.
Actually, except for console users, I don't think anything really depends on xorg fonts anymore (except the builtin ones). They've been dead wood too long – font projects moved elsewere.
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 22:01 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mercredi 03 septembre 2008 à 15:50 -0400, Jim Gettys a écrit :
I'm specifically talking about the type-1 fonts in the distribution; I wasn't planning to pull the renderer itself.
Specifically the package: xorg-x11-fonts-Type1
I don't think anything really depends on this one.
Actually, except for console users, I don't think anything really depends on xorg fonts anymore (except the builtin ones). They've been dead wood too long – font projects moved elsewere.
Exactly. I suspect it is pretty safe to nuke it so it isn't installed on Fedora by default, leaving the chance of picking them up by accident.
There are some other packages that are similar, I suspect; e.g. the URW fonts.
It's also possible to nuke the bitmap fonts, though for legacy reasons, font aliases should be installed to fail-over to one of the modern outline fonts. - Jim
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Jim Gettys jg@laptop.org wrote:
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 22:01 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mercredi 03 septembre 2008 à 15:50 -0400, Jim Gettys a écrit :
I'm specifically talking about the type-1 fonts in the distribution; I wasn't planning to pull the renderer itself.
Specifically the package: xorg-x11-fonts-Type1
I don't think anything really depends on this one.
Actually, except for console users, I don't think anything really depends on xorg fonts anymore (except the builtin ones). They've been dead wood too long – font projects moved elsewere.
Exactly. I suspect it is pretty safe to nuke it so it isn't installed on Fedora by default, leaving the chance of picking them up by accident.
+1 for removing xorg-x11-fonts-Type1
There are some other packages that are similar, I suspect; e.g. the URW fonts.
These are the standard PostScript 35 fonts, albeit with URW names. I'm not sure that certain things won't break without them, e.g. old PDFs that don't embed base fonts. Adobe 7.x+ comes with multiple master fonts to emulate these, but I don't think evince/poppler have such capabilities. Needs some testing.
It's also possible to nuke the bitmap fonts, though for legacy reasons, font aliases should be installed to fail-over to one of the modern outline fonts.
-0.5 Not really remove. You'd have add them as prereqs for various apps that need them (x)emacs and fontforge come to mind. (x)emacs works best with these. You can use other fonts, but you'll have to use a larger point size font and you'll be able to fit fewer text lines on a given screen area. I think people will complain that "emacs fonts look fuzzy / are too big" etc. If you can find a reasonable alternative let me know.
- Jim
-- Jim Gettys jg@laptop.org One Laptop Per Child
Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
The same can be said about OpenType CFF fonts. There are some minor improvements in hinting between Type 1 and Type 2 (CFF), e.g. flex hints, but the mechanism is largely the same. Type 1 or CFF fonts work quite well in a PDF viewer, because you usually use larger point sizes. But they don't work that well as UI fonts, which is probably what you mean.
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Jim Gettys jg@laptop.org wrote:
Last I knew, all they would do (on the screen) was make for an ugly screen, as we haven't had a decent Type-1 font renderer....
Anyone have any knowledge of anything current that uses type-1 on the screen? On paper? - Jim
-- Jim Gettys jg@laptop.org One Laptop Per Child
Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Le mercredi 03 septembre 2008 à 15:29 -0400, Jim Gettys a écrit :
Last I knew, all they would do (on the screen) was make for an ugly screen, as we haven't had a decent Type-1 font renderer....
Anyone have any knowledge of anything current that uses type-1 on the screen? On paper?
There was some discussion on the subject at the end of last month, all the gory details should be in the archives.
But anyway, IIRC:
1. the most user-visible Type1 holdout are the GhostScript PS1-compatible fonts. We ship them in many forms/versions, they should all be hunted down and replaced by the OpenType GUST TEX Gyre fonts, *IF* someone manages to convince the GUST guys to straighten out their licensing (ie not relicense GPL material under their pet license just because they like it best)
2. TEX in general seems a multi-font-format (including PS1) swamp. I don't despair of the TEX guys doing some massive draining, but right now the situation is not pretty.
3. and you have all the people who've spent fat sums of money on proprietary Type1 fonts, and are belately realising that computer formats are not eternal and they've invested in perishable goods (but they'd love to postpone their fate some more)
Personnaly I feel that if 1. was taken care of, there would be some pressure on 2., and 3. is a lost cause anyway.