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.

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?