[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > > Unfortunately, the `glyphshow' operator is a level-2 PostScript
> > > command which older printers don't support (my original Apple
> > > LaserWriter Select is one of them).
> >
> > Is that really a problem?
>
> I think yes. Even Acrobat still produces level1 PS
> > Unfortunately, the `glyphshow' operator is a level-2 PostScript
> > command which older printers don't support (my original Apple
> > LaserWriter Select is one of them).
>
> Is that really a problem?
I think yes. Even Acrobat still produces level1 PS code on demand.
> Can't ghostscript be u
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > (hi) show
> >
> > we would dump
> >
> > /h glyphshow /i glyphshow
>
> Unfortunately, the `glyphshow' operator is a level-2 PostScript
> command which older printers don't support (my original Apple
> LaserWriter Select is one of them).
Is that really a pr
I'm in the process of resurrecting the 2.2 behaviour in lilypond (more
or less). Please stay patient.
That would be really good, thanks. I'm patient, but wanted to be sure
that the support of national chars has not been forgotten :-) (And for
making the cygwin builds of 2.4 I needed the moti
> I can understand this, but national (non-latin1) characters was
> supported in 2.2 and seems to be not supported in 2.4, is it? Han's
> definition for a release-critical bug in 2.4 was "something that is
> worse than was in 2.2".
I'm in the process of resurrecting the 2.2 behaviour in lilypond (
My other problem is that using 2.3.22 I can't use latin2-encoding
(there is no latin2.enc, and creating one based on some other
package didn't help) and either TeX codes (e.g. \H{o} - they mess up
lyrics). So if latin2 isn't a standard part of 2.4 I won't upgrade.
This won't be fixed in 2.4,
> So the question: is it possible to use arbitrary (I mean fonts in a
> format that I can buy from fontmakers) fonts in LilyPond scores or
> not.
If you use the PS backend, yes (at least theoretically; I haven't
tested it yet). Currently only with latin-1.
> My other problem is that using 2.3.2
I'm trying to approach the problem from my point of view: as a user who
needs latin-2 or unicode encoding with a Garamond font that is shipped
with my Windows system. I'd like to use it in a book created in a DTP
software and the book is to be written with Garamond, and it is needed
to have the
> Sorry if I don't understand everything but I think adding support
> for OpenType fonts would be by far better than hacking with all
> those TeX font stuff. Is it practically possible?
This is a completely different issue. We have first to solve the
problem how to access glyphs in an easy way w
> I just realized that there might be an easy answer out of the
> font-encoding troubles. [...]
Hopefully, we'll discuss this `in personam' soon. Whatever we find,
this is something for the 2.5 series. Don't haste.
> * dump all text string using glyphshow. Instead of doing
>
> (hi) show
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Sorry if I don't understand everything but I think adding support for
> OpenType fonts would be by far better than hacking with all those TeX
> font stuff. Is it practically possible?
I am not aware of any free OpenType font that we could ship with
lily. Do you know a
Sorry if I don't understand everything but I think adding support for
OpenType fonts would be by far better than hacking with all those TeX
font stuff. Is it practically possible?
Bert
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.gnu.
hi there,
I just realized that there might be an easy answer out of the
font-encoding troubles. We could use the current setup (setting
encodings with \encoding), and solve the problem on the backend by a
two-step process:
* dump all text string using glyphshow. Instead of doing
(hi) show
we
13 matches
Mail list logo
