On 08/11/2009, at 9:21 PM, Robin Fairbairns wrote:
> Will Robertson <[log in to unmask]> 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.
Exactly, and loading T1 *without* lmodern results in transparently
swapping in these fonts, at least in every TeX distribution since
early this decade or thereabouts. So it *is* T1 that I object to, in
On the other hand, I'd far prefer having CM-Super embedded in all
those legacy documents lying around on the web that use the bitmap EC
fonts in PDF documents. Of course, I'm aware that for many years there
simply weren't PostScript versions of the CM fonts freely available.
Before LM, CM-Super was the best of a not-very-optimal situation.