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? r