MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID:  <4805.1257677519@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:51:59 +0000
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From: Robin Fairbairns <Robin.Fairbairns@CL.CAM.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Please don't \RequirePackage{lmodern}
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  Your message of Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:30:44 +1030. 
              <6E5EFB24-EA7F-446C-AAEA-D08CFDADB89D@gmail.com>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Will Robertson <wspr81@GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> On 08/11/2009, at 3:30 AM, Lars Hellström wrote:
>
> > Well, I think the T1 encoding default EC fonts beat both (at least
> > if we restrict ourselves to the latin script; certainly part of the
> > size of CM-Super is due to providing glyphs from other scripts as
> > well, and these days drivers tend to subset fonts anyway).
> 
> I didn't think there were PostScript Type 1 EC fonts?

there aren't -- just this enormous monolithic lump called cm-super.

the thing that irritates me about it is that (almost) every font is
present in all sizes from 5-11, and then the magsteps to 35.83, so that
not only is each font huge, there are also an awful lot of them (409 on
the archive just now -- 60 mbytes or so).

all as described in the faq.  i dunno why i bother...

> > First, I never objected to using the T1 encoding. When I'm not
> > generating PDF, there is no problem with getting EC glyphs.
> 
> Oh, you meant bitmap anyway.

what viewer nowadays _doesn't_ work with type 1?

or is it just that my feeble eyes don't see some terrible failing?

r