Différences

Ci-dessous, les différences entre deux révisions de la page.

--- fichiers:fontes:formats_de_polices_adobe [2018/05/25 21:20] – joseph.wright
+++ 5_fichiers:fontes:formats_de_polices_adobe [2021/05/27 11:46] (Version actuelle) – Remise en forme mineure. Mise à jour de liens internes. jejust
@@ Ligne 1: / Ligne 1: @@
----
+====== Adobe font formats ======
-title: Adobe font formats
-category: concepts
-permalink: /FAQ-adobetypen
-date: 2014-06-10
----
-# Adobe font formats
 Adobe has specified a number of formats for files to represent fonts
 in PostScript files; this question doesn't attempt to be encyclopaedic, so
 we only discuss the two formats most commonly encountered in the
-(La)TeX context, types&nbsp;1 and 3.  In particular, we don't discuss the
+(La)TeX context, types(nbsp)1 and 3.  In particular, we don't discuss the
 OpenType format, whose many advantages now becoming accessible to most
-(La)TeX users (by means of
+(La)TeX users (by means of the widely-used [[1_generalites:glossaire:qu_est_ce_que_xetex|XeTeX]]
-  the widely-used [XeTeX](/FAQ-xetex) and the more experimental
+and the more experimental [[1_generalites:glossaire:qu_est_ce_que_luatex|LuaTeX]]).
-  [LuaTeX](/FAQ-luatex)).
-Adobe Type&nbsp;1 format specifies a means to represent outlines of the glyphs
+Adobe Type 1 format specifies a means to represent outlines of the glyphs
-in a font.  The ''language'' used is closely restricted, to ensure that
+in a font.  The "language" used is closely restricted, to ensure that
 the font is rendered as quickly as possible.  (Or rather, as quickly
 as possible with Adobe's technology at the time the specification was
@@ Ligne 25: / Ligne 18: @@
 business, though nowadays most new fonts are released in OpenType format.
-In the (La)TeX context, Type&nbsp;1 fonts are extremely important.  Apart
+In the (La)TeX context, Type 1 fonts are extremely important.  Apart
-from their simple
+from their simple availability (there are thousands of commercial Type(nbsp)1
-availability (there are thousands of commercial Type&nbsp;1 text fonts around), the
+text fonts around), the commonest reader for PDF files has long (in effect) //insisted// on
-commonest reader for PDF files has long (in effect) _insisted_ on
 their use (see below).
-Type&nbsp;3 fonts have a more forgiving specification.  A wide range of
+Type 3 fonts have a more forgiving specification.  A wide range of
-PostScript operators is permissible, including bitmap specifiers.  Type&nbsp;3
+PostScript operators is permissible, including bitmap specifiers.  Type(nbsp)3
 is therefore the natural format to be used for programs such as
-`dvips` when they auto-generate something to represent
+''dvips'' when they auto-generate something to represent
 MetaFont-generated fonts in a PostScript file.  It's Adobe Acrobat Viewer's
-treatment of bitmap Type&nbsp;3 fonts that has made direct MetaFont output
+treatment of bitmap Type(nbsp)3 fonts that has made direct MetaFont output
-increasingly unattractive, in recent years.  If you have a PDF
+increasingly unattractive, in recent years.  If you have a PDF document
-document in which the text looks fuzzy and uneven in Acrobat Reader,
+in which the text looks fuzzy and uneven in Acrobat Reader, ask Reader for the
-ask Reader for the `File`&rarr;
+''File''$\rightarrow$''Document Properties''$\rightarrow$''Fonts ...'',
-`Document Properties`&rarr;
+and it will likely show some font or other as "Type(nbsp)3" (usually with encoding "Custom").
-`Fonts ...`, and it will likely show some font or other as
+The problem has disappeared with version 6 of Acrobat Reader.
-''Type&nbsp;3'' (usually with encoding ''Custom'').  The problem has
+See [[5_fichiers:pdf:generer_un_fichier_pdf_de_qualite|PDF quality]]
-disappeared with version 6 of Acrobat Reader.  See
+for a discussion of the issue, and for ways of addressing it.
-[PDF quality](/FAQ-dvips-pdf) for a discussion of
-the issue, and for ways of addressing it.
-Type&nbsp;3 fonts should not entirely be dismissed, however.  Acrobat
+Type 3 fonts should not entirely be dismissed, however.  Acrobat
 Reader's failure with them is entirely derived from its failure to use
 the anti-aliasing techniques common in TeX-ware.  Choose a
 different set of PostScript graphical operators, and you can make pleasing
-Type&nbsp;3 fonts that don't ''annoy'' Reader.  For example, you may not
+Type 3 fonts that don't "annoy" Reader.  For example, you may not
-change color within a Type&nbsp;1 font glyph, but there's no such
+change color within a Type 1 font glyph, but there's no such
-restriction on a Type&nbsp;3 font, which opens opportunities for some
+restriction on a Type 3 font, which opens opportunities for some
 startling effects.
+-----
+//Source:// [[faquk>FAQ-adobetypen|Adobe font formats]]
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(LaTeX,concepts)
+metatag-og:title=(Adobe font formats)
+metatag-og:site_name=(FAQ LaTeX francophone)
+}}