[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] Font Composition
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] Font Composition |
Date: |
Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:32:01 +0200 (CEST) |
> 1) The UnderlinePosition and UnderlineThickness values from the
> afm files are discarded by afmtodit. There is nothing
> corresponding to the in the groff devps font files. How is
> groff then expected to provide proper underlining to text?
Of all output formats groff is supporting, only PS has support for
font-based underlining.
> 2) Can groff `compose' fonts, so to say?
Yes. Check the .fspecial request.
> If we have these fonts, is there any way to set up a font-file
> so that groff mainly uses characters from the regular font, and
> switches to another font (which will be intentionally visually
> compatible with the main font) when it needs ffi, or small caps,
> or old-style figures?
Assuming that font `foo' contains the normal fonts, and font
`foo-sc' the small caps glyphs, it would make sense to say
.fspecial foo-sc foo
so that glyphs not contained in `foo-sc' are taken from `foo'.
> 3) Another type of composition may be useful. As opposed to the
> `design-time' composition discussed in the previous point, this
> is `run-time' composition. This involves providing groff with a
> certain set of instructions that cause it to render *every*
> character of a font in a slightly different way, keeping the
> metrics the same, or differing in a systematic way.
It's always problematic to add features to groff just for the sake of
PS output.
> In effect, the additional instructions will be drawing
> primitives, but should be made general to permit, for example,
> overprinting. This technique can be utilised to effect using
> only that most expressive of mediums---PostScript, but can be
> used to wonderful effect for generating special effects such as
> strikethrough, underline, and pseudo-boldify/italicise reliably,
> and without any of the trickery macro-packages must employ to get
> around to it. It can also be creatively used for many more
> effects.
Well, groff already has some features for that: Read the section
`Artificial Fonts' in the groff texinfo manual. In general, I
consider such features as bad. It is against good typographic
tradition.
If you really need such features it should be straightforward to
provide some PS macros, but I strongly oppose to add this directly to
groff since it won't work with other devices.
Werner