Re: [ft-devel] Understanding Type1 fonts

[Werner LEMBERG]

> >    PBA,PBF -> AFM
> Are those new types or typos?

Typos, sorry.

[In the following, I assume that you want to get metrics, right?]

> So, to clarify, you advise that:
>
> 1. If I find a PFB file without an AFM, just use the PFB (i.e. link
>    into ~/.fonts).
> 2. If I find a PFB with a partner AFM file, use both (i.e. link both
>    into ~/.fonts).
> 3. If I find a PFA file without an AFM, just use the PFA.
> 4. If I find a PFA with a partner AFM, use both.
> 5. Ignore any and all PFM files.

Step 5 could be: If there is no AFM file for this font, try to find a
PFM file instead.

> > This is it.  There are other PS font formats,
>
> Are these worth supporting?  I don't think I have one on my entire
> Kubuntu system.  What would they be called? "Postscript fonts"?

Well, OpenType fonts (often with extension `.otf') are either based on
TrueType outlines or PostScript outlines (as CFF).  Then, there are
pure CFFs, there are Type 42 fonts, etc., etc.  Not a trivial topic.

> Look into FreeType's `formats.txt' documentation file.
>
> Thanks, I had a look. There is no mention of pf* in that file at
> all.

Well, `PFA' and `PFB' are subsumed under `TYPE_1'.  However, it's just
a MS-DOS/Windows convention that such fonts have either `.pfa' or
`.pfb' as the extension.

> Kind of confusing for me, but I'll read it a few times.

It's *very* confusing, indeed.  It took me many hours to compile this
small table, and to grasp the distinction between wrapper format, font
format, and font type is nontrivial.


    Werner