[XeTeX] CID-keyed font support?
Khaled Hosny
khaledhosny at eglug.org
Sun Jul 27 06:10:17 CEST 2014
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 06:57:24PM +0200, Jiang Jiang wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Khaled Hosny <khaledhosny at eglug.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 07:18:10PM +0200, Jiang Jiang wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Khaled Hosny <khaledhosny at eglug.org> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 09:01:32AM +0200, Jiang Jiang wrote:
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Peter Breitenlohner <peb at mppmu.mpg.de> wrote:
> >> >> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Jiang Jiang wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Since Peter is not responding, ....
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hi Jiang Jiang,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > that was on purpose because I am not the maintainer and don't know too much
> >> >> > abaout that program. All I did were purely technical things such as
> >> >> > identifying identical code in the two programs, code cleanup (C language
> >> >> > bugs and compiler warnings) and general TeX Live infrastructure.
> >> >>
> >> >> OK, sorry about that. So who is the maintainer of dvipdfm-x then?
> >> >
> >> > I partly do, and it happens that I was in the middle of some major
> >> > refactoring removing most of the different font loading paths between
> >> > dvipdfmx and xdvipdfmx (in preparation of their eventual merger) and
> >> > this of course is conflicting with your changes. I had to revert them
> >> > locally for now, and will need to figure out how to re-do it again since
> >> > the fc_face member of the various font structure is almost gone.
> >>
> >> There has to be a FT_Face somewhere, right?
> >
> > Probably not, at least unless absolutely required.
>
> I'm not sure it's a good idea. I looked at your changes and I'd rather
> it to be the other way around, remove the legacy dvipdfm-x code and
> replace it with FreeType calls instead. At a glance I felt that
> FreeType code is way better maintained and in a much better shape than
> dvipdfm-x code, I can't remember how many times I see "FIXME" and
> "This should be fixed" in dvipdfm-x code base.
I'd like to move into that direction as well, but I need to make sure
the unified driver works as intended first and it seemed that unifying
on the side of dvipdfmx that is more feature complete than xdvipdfmx is
easier on the short run. Once the unified driver is working fine, we can
start replacing parts of the dvipdfmx code with equivalent FreeType
API's (I'd like to note that not all parts of FreeType that well
maintained; I have found several bugs while working on XeTeX).
> Take CFF and CID font
> support for instance, I suspect that we will have to spent 10 times
> more effort to correct the current dvipdfm-x code while FreeType has
> high quality code (some contributed by Adobe themselves) ready for
> use. While unifying the dvipdfmx and xdvipdfmx is a goal worth
> pursuing I doubt it will actually bring a higher quality version to
> XeTeX users in the next release.
Let hope we have enough time before the next release to make sure it
is :)
Regards,
Khaled
More information about the XeTeX
mailing list