[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing.
|
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
|
Subject: |
Re: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing. |
|
Date: |
Sat, 01 Jul 2000 23:51:39 +0200 (CEST) |
> The "type1z" hinter simply loads the glyphs, and it's _definitely_
> faster with all the benchmarks I've tried.. Further, the "type1"
> hinter is really crummy compared to the auto-hinter..
My knowledge of Type 1 hints is very minor... Does the auto-hinter
completely ignore hints? This would be not optimal, I think.
Werner
- type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing., Tom Kacvinsky, 2000/07/01
- FIXED: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing., Tom Kacvinsky, 2000/07/01
- Re: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing., Werner LEMBERG, 2000/07/01
- Re: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing., David Turner, 2000/07/01
- Re: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing., Tom Kacvinsky, 2000/07/01
- Re: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing.,
Werner LEMBERG <=
- Autohinting concerns [was: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing.], Tom Kacvinsky, 2000/07/02
- Re: Autohinting concerns [was: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing.], David Turner, 2000/07/02
- Re: Autohinting concerns [was: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing.], Werner LEMBERG, 2000/07/03
- Re: Autohinting concerns [was: type1z vs. type1 charstrings processing.], Angus Duggan, 2000/07/03
- CJK hinting [was: Autohinting concerns], Tom Kacvinsky, 2000/07/04
- Re: Autohinting concerns [was: type1z vs. type1 charstringsprocessing.], David Turner, 2000/07/04