Différences

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

--- fichiers:fontes:formats_de_polices_adobe [2018/12/04 00:11] – jejust
+++ 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 5: / Ligne 5: @@
 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 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 [[FAQ-xetex|XeTeX]] and the more experimental
+and the more experimental [[1_generalites:glossaire:qu_est_ce_que_luatex|LuaTeX]]).
-  [[FAQ-luatex|LuaTeX]]).
 Adobe Type 1 format specifies a means to represent outlines of the glyphs
@@ Ligne 20: / Ligne 19: @@
 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 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 3 fonts have a more forgiving specification.  A wide range of
-PostScript operators is permissible, including bitmap specifiers.  Type 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
 MetaFont-generated fonts in a PostScript file.  It's Adobe Acrobat Viewer's
-treatment of bitmap Type 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''$\rightarrow$
+''File''$\rightarrow$''Document Properties''$\rightarrow$''Fonts ...'',
-''Document Properties''$\rightarrow$
+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 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.
-[[FAQ-dvips-pdf|PDF quality]] for a discussion of
-the issue, and for ways of addressing it.
 Type 3 fonts should not entirely be dismissed, however.  Acrobat