Hi Alex, At 2024-03-22T18:35:02+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > I see that Debian provides the Tinos font in some package: > > $ apt-file find -x Tinos.*pf > texlive-fonts-extra: /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/google/tinos/Tinos-Bold.pfb > texlive-fonts-extra: /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/google/tinos/Tinos-BoldItalic.pfb > texlive-fonts-extra: /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/google/tinos/Tinos-Italic.pfb > texlive-fonts-extra: /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/google/tinos/Tinos.pfb > > The above is .pfb, not .pfa, which I don't understand and may not be > usable for our purposes, PFA and PFB are closely related font file formats. Reputedly, they stand for "PostScript" (or "Printer") "Font" "ASCII" or "Binary", respectively. PFB was much more widely used on MS-DOS, due either to the meager disk space there, the 640kB RAM limit, or because it was thought that the fonts would be "pirated" (or even understood) less because the nature of their contents was less obvious. Who knows? Regardless, groff provides a tool for converting uncouth PFB to civilized PFA. $ apropos pfbtops pfbtops (1) - translate Printer Font Binary files to PostScript ASCII The grops(1) and gropdf(1) man pages in groff 1.23.0 discuss using this tool to prepare fonts so that groff can read them. (Why not "pfbtopfa"? Ghostscript was already using that name. Why does groff provide a tool that does the same thing? Good question. I don't know. It is not a young program--it is old.[1] Maybe at one time groff was portable to MS-DOS but Ghostscript was not.) > Can we similarly get the Unifont for zh_CN PDFs? As I understand it, GNU Unifont is a low-resolution bitmap font intended for terminal emulators.[2] I expect it would look offensively bad when typeset. Regards, Branden [1] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/tree/NEWS?h=1.23.0#n3211 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2tgZCabTzs [2] https://unifoundry.com/unifont/index.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
