a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents

a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents

[Erik Iverson]

Hello,

I'm wondering if anyone can

1) reproduce what I'm seeing
2) help in understanding what's going on.

If I export an Org file to LaTeX, the resulting
.tex file contains the following in its header:

\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{t1enc}

Long story short:

The resulting .PDF file from pdflatex looks quite
bad in evince, and quite good in Acroread. By "quite bad",
I mean the fonts are practically illegible, very thin
and wiry.

If I comment out *both* of those package requirements,
recompile the PDF, the resulting PDF looks great in all
viewers I can find.

The Fonts specified in the Properties of the document
change when I use those packages versus not use them.

However, the packages are the default for good reason I'm sure,
but C-c C-e d fires up Evince on my system, so the default
is not very pleasant.

I realize this isn't org-mode question per se, but can
anyone else replicate this, and do you know what's happening?
It seems like a potential problem with Evince specifically, since
Acroread seems to handle the resulting PDF just fine.

Finally, does anyone know why the t1enc package is required, the
only thing I read about it was the following:

http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=t1enc

Thanks!
Erik

Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents

[John Hendy]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2505 bytes --]

I know this is old, but check here?
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-557746.html

<http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-557746.html>They don't really
"solve" the problem except by doing what you did -- remove the encoding
lines. Perhaps you should try verifying your LaTeX fonts packages or check
with your distro repository to see what exists? I'm on Arch and they some
fantastic documentation. Here, for example, are the various texlive packages
I can pick from:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TeX_Live#Group_texlive-most

Not saying one of those would fix the problem, but I wonder if you could
verify you have the fontsextra package? Just an idea?

Or run 'pdflatex file.tex' from the command line to see if any errors come
up when using pdflatex directly vs. through org? You might be able to see
more of the inner details that way and if it's complaining?


John

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm wondering if anyone can
>
> 1) reproduce what I'm seeing
> 2) help in understanding what's going on.
>
> If I export an Org file to LaTeX, the resulting
> .tex file contains the following in its header:
>
> \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
> \usepackage{t1enc}
>
> Long story short:
>
> The resulting .PDF file from pdflatex looks quite
> bad in evince, and quite good in Acroread. By "quite bad",
> I mean the fonts are practically illegible, very thin
> and wiry.
>
> If I comment out *both* of those package requirements,
> recompile the PDF, the resulting PDF looks great in all
> viewers I can find.
>
> The Fonts specified in the Properties of the document
> change when I use those packages versus not use them.
>
> However, the packages are the default for good reason I'm sure,
> but C-c C-e d fires up Evince on my system, so the default
> is not very pleasant.
>
> I realize this isn't org-mode question per se, but can
> anyone else replicate this, and do you know what's happening?
> It seems like a potential problem with Evince specifically, since
> Acroread seems to handle the resulting PDF just fine.
>
> Finally, does anyone know why the t1enc package is required, the
> only thing I read about it was the following:
>
> http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=t1enc
>
> Thanks!
> Erik
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3617 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 201 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents

[Erik Iverson]

John,

Thank you for your reply.

For those that don't want to read all that follows, please note my
conclusion, given here:

Since orgmode is automatically telling latex to use T1 encoding,
perhaps we should somewhere document to the user that Type 1
fonts should be available to get the best looking PDF possible.
Otherwise, type 3 fonts will be substituted. I got suitable
Type-1 fonts by installing the texlive-fonts-extra package
under Ubuntu.

(Of course, that could already be documented somewhere :) )

All of this explained very succinctly right here:
http://www.latex-community.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=571

 > Here, for example, are the
> various texlive packages I can pick 
> from: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TeX_Live#Group_texlive-most
> 
> Not saying one of those would fix the problem, but I wonder if you could 
> verify you have the fontsextra package? Just an idea?

It was a great idea.  It was what was wrong.  :)

Under Ubuntu, I simply install texlive-fonts-extra, and it works.

Of course, I was a bit more curious as to exactly *what* and *why*
things were behaving as they were, so here is a summary for those who
may see the same issue.

Caveat: I don't know much about font issues, so the following is a bit
imprecise and possibly even plain wrong :).

By including [T1]{fontenc}, we are telling LaTeX to use so called T1
font encoding.  Simple enough.  However, the original Computer Modern
fonts were not designed with this encoding in mind.  There have been
Type 1 replacements made and can be found in the Cm-super package.
This is part of what texlive-fonts-extra installs, but was not
available on either of the systems I tested on, one Ubuntu, one
Fedora.

Not having these font packages, I set out to determine which
fonts were being used in the PDF depending on what encodings we
use.

The best way I have of checking what's going on is making a PDF,
and then opening it up in Evince or acroread, and looking at 'fonts'
tab under the document properties.

As things were, i.e.: before installing texlive-fonts-extra, and
while including T1 font encoding, things looked
quite bad under Evince.  Looking at the fonts included in the PDF
showed why.  Instead of the list of computer modern fonts I get when
I don't include the T1 encoding, I got a list of "Type 3" fonts with
"No Name" in evince and names like "F16, F20, ..." in acrobat.

Why these looked "ok" under acrobat is not understood by me, but
they certainly looked poor under evince.

I could 'fix' this many ways, including removing the lines referencing
T1 encoding from the .tex file, or changing fontenc to OT1 instead of
T1, essentially the same fix.  This allowed the good old computer
modern fonts to be included in the PDF, and all was well. But I wanted
to know why T1 encoding wasn't working.

After installing texlive-fonts-extra, I now have the
"cm-super" package.  These fonts now are used when I specify the T1
encoding. (I think!)  Now, my list of fonts under evince looks like
"sfrm1200" for example.  No more Type 3 fonts, they are all Type 1.
This all seems to be explained in Chapter 7 of The LaTeX Companion,
section 7.5.

I would be interested in what the names of the fonts embedded in
PDF documents from other users are?  Are you all using these
"cm-super" fonts?

Alternatively, I was also able to get nice fonts by using the
Modern Latin package, \usepackage{lmodern} with T1 encoding
specified.

The upshot is: If you're using an OS with a package manager,
it might pay to do a "texlive-full" type install, instead of just
doing the bits and pieces of latex packages as I've been doing!
Unfortunately, I think with at least Ubuntu, that's not the
default, so many users may be having the same issue as I am,
without even realizing it.


Hope this helps,

--Erik


> 
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu 
> <mailto:eriki@ccbr.umn.edu>> wrote:
> 
>     Hello,
> 
>     I'm wondering if anyone can
> 
>     1) reproduce what I'm seeing
>     2) help in understanding what's going on.
> 
>     If I export an Org file to LaTeX, the resulting
>     .tex file contains the following in its header:
> 
>     \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
>     \usepackage{t1enc}
> 
>     Long story short:
> 
>     The resulting .PDF file from pdflatex looks quite
>     bad in evince, and quite good in Acroread. By "quite bad",
>     I mean the fonts are practically illegible, very thin
>     and wiry.
> 
>     If I comment out *both* of those package requirements,
>     recompile the PDF, the resulting PDF looks great in all
>     viewers I can find.
> 
>     The Fonts specified in the Properties of the document
>     change when I use those packages versus not use them.
> 
>     However, the packages are the default for good reason I'm sure,
>     but C-c C-e d fires up Evince on my system, so the default
>     is not very pleasant.
> 
>     I realize this isn't org-mode question per se, but can
>     anyone else replicate this, and do you know what's happening?
>     It seems like a potential problem with Evince specifically, since
>     Acroread seems to handle the resulting PDF just fine.
> 
>     Finally, does anyone know why the t1enc package is required, the
>     only thing I read about it was the following:
> 
>     http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=t1enc
> 
>     Thanks!
>     Erik
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>     Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>     Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org <mailto:Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
>     http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
> 
> 

Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents

[Alan L Tyree]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:34:08 -0500
Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I'm wondering if anyone can
> 
> 1) reproduce what I'm seeing
> 2) help in understanding what's going on.
> 
> If I export an Org file to LaTeX, the resulting
> .tex file contains the following in its header:
> 
> \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
> \usepackage{t1enc}
> 
> Long story short:
> 
> The resulting .PDF file from pdflatex looks quite
> bad in evince, and quite good in Acroread. By "quite bad",
> I mean the fonts are practically illegible, very thin
> and wiry.
> 
<SNIP>
Hi Erik,
I'm on Debian Squeeze, and I don't seem to have this problem. The fonts
reported in the Properties are LMRoman and they look ok in Evince.

I have all the latex extras installed.

Let me know if I can give you any more info.

Cheers,
Alan

> Erik
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
> 


-- 
Alan L Tyree                    http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel:  04 2748 6206

Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents

[Erik Iverson]

Alan,

> Hi Erik,
> I'm on Debian Squeeze, and I don't seem to have this problem. The fonts
> reported in the Properties are LMRoman and they look ok in Evince.
> 
> I have all the latex extras installed.

If you've seen my recent follow-up, that makes sense to me.

So you are somehow getting LMRoman as your font *without*
including \usepackage{lmodern} ?  Can you verify that your
exported .tex files don't include that line?

Thanks!
--Erik

Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents - oops

[Alan L Tyree]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:34:08 -0500
Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I'm wondering if anyone can
> 
> 1) reproduce what I'm seeing
> 2) help in understanding what's going on.
> 
> If I export an Org file to LaTeX, the resulting
> .tex file contains the following in its header:
<SNIP>
Erik,
I just realised that I had added \usepackage{lmodern} to get the result
that I mentioned in my last post.

Without the lmodern package, the output still looks OK, but the fonts
are "No Name" Type 3 Embedded.

HTH,
Alan

> 
> Thanks!
> Erik
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
> 


-- 
Alan L Tyree                    http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel:  04 2748 6206

Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents - oops

[Erik Iverson]

Alan L Tyree wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:34:08 -0500
> Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm wondering if anyone can
>>
>> 1) reproduce what I'm seeing
>> 2) help in understanding what's going on.
>>
>> If I export an Org file to LaTeX, the resulting
>> .tex file contains the following in its header:
> <SNIP>
> Erik,
> I just realised that I had added \usepackage{lmodern} to get the result
> that I mentioned in my last post.
> 
> Without the lmodern package, the output still looks OK, but the fonts
> are "No Name" Type 3 Embedded.

Great, that makes sense to me.  I noticed a significant loss of quality
with my type 3 fonts at 100% zoom.  They could have been different type
3 fonts, or different screen resolutions, document zoom, ... etc.

Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents

[Markus Heller]

Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu> writes:

> John,
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> For those that don't want to read all that follows, please note my
> conclusion, given here:
>
> Since orgmode is automatically telling latex to use T1 encoding,
> perhaps we should somewhere document to the user that Type 1
> fonts should be available to get the best looking PDF possible.
> Otherwise, type 3 fonts will be substituted. I got suitable
> Type-1 fonts by installing the texlive-fonts-extra package
> under Ubuntu.

Note that T1 *font encoding* has nothing to do with Type 1 fonts!

As far as I understand, you need Type 1 fonts for good looking pdfs
(Type 3 are bitmap fonts and thus not scalable), but the actual font
encoding shouldn't matter.

Just my 2 cents
Markus

Re: Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents

[Erik Iverson]

Markus Heller wrote:
> Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu> writes:
> 
>> John,
>>
>> Thank you for your reply.
>>
>> For those that don't want to read all that follows, please note my
>> conclusion, given here:
>>
>> Since orgmode is automatically telling latex to use T1 encoding,
>> perhaps we should somewhere document to the user that Type 1
>> fonts should be available to get the best looking PDF possible.
>> Otherwise, type 3 fonts will be substituted. I got suitable
>> Type-1 fonts by installing the texlive-fonts-extra package
>> under Ubuntu.
> 
> Note that T1 *font encoding* has nothing to do with Type 1 fonts!

Yes, thank you.  I gathered that eventually, but it did take some
time to appreciate they are completely different concepts.  Is
the following correct?

Some Type 1 fonts *support* the T1 encoding.  Computer Modern is
not one of those, so you need some that do.  CM-super or Latin
Modern are two Type 1 font packages that do support the T1 encoding.

> 
> As far as I understand, you need Type 1 fonts for good looking pdfs
> (Type 3 are bitmap fonts and thus not scalable), but the actual font
> encoding shouldn't matter.

Yes! But as I think(?) I discovered, when T1 encoding is specified,
the Type 1 Computer Modern fonts don't support it, and therefore
are not included in the PDF. In my case, a Type 3 font was substituted
that looked nasty.  I needed to install proper Type 1 fonts that support
the T1 encoding, like Cm-super or Latin Modern.

Since orgmode is telling latex to use T1 encoding by default, I was
bitten by the fact that I had no Type 1 fonts that supported this
encoding, with my bare-bones latex install from a relatively common
Linux distro.

My message is just serving as information about how to get those fonts.

Thanks!

Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents

[John Hendy]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5961 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu> wrote:

> John,
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
>
No problem -- nice report and I'm glad you got things fixed!!

John


> For those that don't want to read all that follows, please note my
> conclusion, given here:
>
> Since orgmode is automatically telling latex to use T1 encoding,
> perhaps we should somewhere document to the user that Type 1
> fonts should be available to get the best looking PDF possible.
> Otherwise, type 3 fonts will be substituted. I got suitable
> Type-1 fonts by installing the texlive-fonts-extra package
> under Ubuntu.
>
> (Of course, that could already be documented somewhere :) )
>
> All of this explained very succinctly right here:
> http://www.latex-community.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=571
>
>
> > Here, for example, are the
>
>> various texlive packages I can pick from:
>> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TeX_Live#Group_texlive-most
>>
>> Not saying one of those would fix the problem, but I wonder if you could
>> verify you have the fontsextra package? Just an idea?
>>
>
> It was a great idea.  It was what was wrong.  :)
>
> Under Ubuntu, I simply install texlive-fonts-extra, and it works.
>
> Of course, I was a bit more curious as to exactly *what* and *why*
> things were behaving as they were, so here is a summary for those who
> may see the same issue.
>
> Caveat: I don't know much about font issues, so the following is a bit
> imprecise and possibly even plain wrong :).
>
> By including [T1]{fontenc}, we are telling LaTeX to use so called T1
> font encoding.  Simple enough.  However, the original Computer Modern
> fonts were not designed with this encoding in mind.  There have been
> Type 1 replacements made and can be found in the Cm-super package.
> This is part of what texlive-fonts-extra installs, but was not
> available on either of the systems I tested on, one Ubuntu, one
> Fedora.
>
> Not having these font packages, I set out to determine which
> fonts were being used in the PDF depending on what encodings we
> use.
>
> The best way I have of checking what's going on is making a PDF,
> and then opening it up in Evince or acroread, and looking at 'fonts'
> tab under the document properties.
>
> As things were, i.e.: before installing texlive-fonts-extra, and
> while including T1 font encoding, things looked
> quite bad under Evince.  Looking at the fonts included in the PDF
> showed why.  Instead of the list of computer modern fonts I get when
> I don't include the T1 encoding, I got a list of "Type 3" fonts with
> "No Name" in evince and names like "F16, F20, ..." in acrobat.
>
> Why these looked "ok" under acrobat is not understood by me, but
> they certainly looked poor under evince.
>
> I could 'fix' this many ways, including removing the lines referencing
> T1 encoding from the .tex file, or changing fontenc to OT1 instead of
> T1, essentially the same fix.  This allowed the good old computer
> modern fonts to be included in the PDF, and all was well. But I wanted
> to know why T1 encoding wasn't working.
>
> After installing texlive-fonts-extra, I now have the
> "cm-super" package.  These fonts now are used when I specify the T1
> encoding. (I think!)  Now, my list of fonts under evince looks like
> "sfrm1200" for example.  No more Type 3 fonts, they are all Type 1.
> This all seems to be explained in Chapter 7 of The LaTeX Companion,
> section 7.5.
>
> I would be interested in what the names of the fonts embedded in
> PDF documents from other users are?  Are you all using these
> "cm-super" fonts?
>
> Alternatively, I was also able to get nice fonts by using the
> Modern Latin package, \usepackage{lmodern} with T1 encoding
> specified.
>
> The upshot is: If you're using an OS with a package manager,
> it might pay to do a "texlive-full" type install, instead of just
> doing the bits and pieces of latex packages as I've been doing!
> Unfortunately, I think with at least Ubuntu, that's not the
> default, so many users may be having the same issue as I am,
> without even realizing it.
>
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> --Erik
>
>
>
>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu<mailto:
>> eriki@ccbr.umn.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>    Hello,
>>
>>    I'm wondering if anyone can
>>
>>    1) reproduce what I'm seeing
>>    2) help in understanding what's going on.
>>
>>    If I export an Org file to LaTeX, the resulting
>>    .tex file contains the following in its header:
>>
>>    \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
>>    \usepackage{t1enc}
>>
>>    Long story short:
>>
>>    The resulting .PDF file from pdflatex looks quite
>>    bad in evince, and quite good in Acroread. By "quite bad",
>>    I mean the fonts are practically illegible, very thin
>>    and wiry.
>>
>>    If I comment out *both* of those package requirements,
>>    recompile the PDF, the resulting PDF looks great in all
>>    viewers I can find.
>>
>>    The Fonts specified in the Properties of the document
>>    change when I use those packages versus not use them.
>>
>>    However, the packages are the default for good reason I'm sure,
>>    but C-c C-e d fires up Evince on my system, so the default
>>    is not very pleasant.
>>
>>    I realize this isn't org-mode question per se, but can
>>    anyone else replicate this, and do you know what's happening?
>>    It seems like a potential problem with Evince specifically, since
>>    Acroread seems to handle the resulting PDF just fine.
>>
>>    Finally, does anyone know why the t1enc package is required, the
>>    only thing I read about it was the following:
>>
>>    http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=t1enc
>>
>>    Thanks!
>>    Erik
>>
>>    _______________________________________________
>>    Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>>    Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>>    Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org <mailto:Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
>>
>>    http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>>
>>
>>
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 8039 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 201 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents

[Nick Dokos]

Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu> wrote:

> For those that don't want to read all that follows, please note my
> conclusion, given here:
> 
> Since orgmode is automatically telling latex to use T1 encoding,
> perhaps we should somewhere document to the user that Type 1
> fonts should be available to get the best looking PDF possible.
> Otherwise, type 3 fonts will be substituted. I got suitable
> Type-1 fonts by installing the texlive-fonts-extra package
> under Ubuntu.
> 

[With apologies for the length (and the further off-topic direction) of
this post, I hope the following is of interest to a few people. Those
of you who have no interest in the finer points of TeX fontological history
can safely hit "Delete" now.]

I think the conclusion is substantively correct, but there are a couple
of minor nits: I would leave out the first line of the second paragraph
above ("Since orgmode...T1 encoding,"). I would also note that the problem
is a viewer problem, not a Type3 problem (see below). Here's why:

* Type1 fonts (e.g. the Adobe Postscript standard fonts) are implemented
  as scalable outlines, basically programs that describe what the glyph
  will look like. It's easy to tell the program: draw this glyph at
  1.41421 the size (or whatever other scaling factor you want), hence
  "scalable".

* Type3 fonts are usually bitmaps (that's actually an oversimplification, but it's
  true in the vast majority of cases), so you need a multiplicity of
  them at different sizes to cover the needs of a document.

Both of these (and presumably the missing Type2 as well, although I have
never seen one of those) were defined by Adobe.

T1-encoding has nothing to do with Type1 fonts except for the
unfortunate similarity of the names: an encoding is just the table that
translates from numbers to glyphs in a font. Knuth used a very peculiar
encoding originally (now called OT1) and in 1990, the TeX people got
together at Cork, Ireland, and hashed out this new encoding (it was
called Cork encoding for a long time, but at some point it became
"T1"). The T1-encoding *is* pretty much the encoding that Adobe used for
*its* fonts (whether Type1 or Type3). In particular, there were
T1-encoded Type3 fonts (the so called EC fonts, in their original
incarnation, before they were auto-traced and made into Type1 fonts) and
there are non-T1 encoded Type1 fonts (in particular, T1-encoding deals
with text, mostly European languages that use the Latin alphabet or
slight variations thereof, so Cyrillic, Greek, non-European alphabets
and symbols of various kinds have their own encodings: whether a font
for any of these would be Type1 or Type3 is a matter of implementation.)

Here are some links of interest from the TeX FAQ:

"What are encodings?"   http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=whatenc

"What are the EC fonts?" http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=ECfonts

"Adobe font formats" http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=adobetypen

This last one (and a link therein to PDF quality) is of particular
interest, because it describes the situation when Acrobar Reader
(version < 6) exhibited exactly the problem that you encountered with
Evince. Acrobat Reader has been fixed since then so it deals with Type3
fonts reasonably, but I guess Evince still mistreats Type3 fonts (they
may believe in the motto that "All the fonts (that matter) are Type1".)

Cheers,
Nick

Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents

[Markus Heller]

Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu> writes:

> Markus Heller wrote:
>> Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu> writes:
>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your reply.
>>>
>>> For those that don't want to read all that follows, please note my
>>> conclusion, given here:
>>>
>>> Since orgmode is automatically telling latex to use T1 encoding,
>>> perhaps we should somewhere document to the user that Type 1
>>> fonts should be available to get the best looking PDF possible.
>>> Otherwise, type 3 fonts will be substituted. I got suitable
>>> Type-1 fonts by installing the texlive-fonts-extra package
>>> under Ubuntu.
>>
>> Note that T1 *font encoding* has nothing to do with Type 1 fonts!
>
> Yes, thank you.  I gathered that eventually, but it did take some
> time to appreciate they are completely different concepts.  Is
> the following correct?
>
> Some Type 1 fonts *support* the T1 encoding.  Computer Modern is
> not one of those, so you need some that do.  CM-super or Latin
> Modern are two Type 1 font packages that do support the T1 encoding.

To my knowledge, the above is correct.  I make no guarantees, though ...

Cheers
Markus

Re: Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents

[Nick Dokos]

Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu> wrote:


> Is the following correct?
> 
> Some Type 1 fonts *support* the T1 encoding.  Computer Modern is
> not one of those, so you need some that do.  CM-super or Latin
> Modern are two Type 1 font packages that do support the T1 encoding.
> 

No, "supporting" an encoding makes no sense. The encoding is a map from
(a range of) integers to glyphs. Computer modern is available in both
OT1 and T1 encodings. It is also available as Type1 and Type3 and also
as TrueType (which is not an Adobe format at all): the original Knuth
fonts were Type3, but Y&Y/Blue Sky produced, and eventually donated to
the AMS, Type1 versions. I'm not sure who did the TrueType version.

You can reencode a font (assign each glyph to a number different from
the original - basically apply a permutation to the original table): you
get a different encoding of the same font. That is true whether the font
is Type1 or Type3 or TrueType or ....

Nick

Re: Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents

[Nick Dokos]

Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> wrote:

> the original Knuth fonts were Type3,
> 

That, of course, is nonsense: the original Knuth fonts were born
before Adobe existed. They were in a format that Knuth invented
(PK?). They could just naturally be mapped into Adobe Type3
fonts by dvips, so they could be printed on the original Apple
Laser Printer, when that came out.

Nick

Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents - oops

[Carsten Dominik]

Hi,

I have not followed this thread closely, so if the discussion ends
in something we should change in Org, please write to me and let me  
know explicitly.

Thanks!

- Carsten

On Aug 26, 2010, at 11:41 PM, Alan L Tyree wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:34:08 -0500
> Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm wondering if anyone can
>>
>> 1) reproduce what I'm seeing
>> 2) help in understanding what's going on.
>>
>> If I export an Org file to LaTeX, the resulting
>> .tex file contains the following in its header:
> <SNIP>
> Erik,
> I just realised that I had added \usepackage{lmodern} to get the  
> result
> that I mentioned in my last post.
>
> Without the lmodern package, the output still looks OK, but the fonts
> are "No Name" Type 3 Embedded.
>
> HTH,
> Alan
>
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Erik
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Alan L Tyree                    http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
> Tel:  04 2748 6206
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

- Carsten

Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents - oops

[Nick Dokos]

Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I have not followed this thread closely, so if the discussion ends
> in something we should change in Org, please write to me and let me
> know explicitly.
> 
> Thanks!
> 

Erik Iverson might have a different take but my take is that there is
no major issue. Two minor issues:

One possible change to org is an addition to the documentation
recommending the texlive-fonts-extra package: it includes the cm-super
Type1 fonts - type1 fonts behave better with Evince (and possibly other
PDF viewers) than type3 fonts.

The other possible change that Erik identified is the deletion of the
t1enc package from the list of packages that org includes in exported
LaTeX by default. I haven't tried without it, but it does indeed seem to
be an obsolete remnant of times long past. The TeX FAQ
(http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=t1enc ) says:

,----
| Why use fontenc rather than t1enc?
| 
| In the very earliest days of LaTeX2e, the only way to use the T1
| encoding was t1enc; with the summer 1994 “production” release, the
| fontenc package appeared, and provided comprehensive support for use of
| the encoding.
| 
| Nevertheless, the t1enc package remains (as part of the LaTeX 2.09
| compatibility code), but it does very little: it merely selects font
| encoding T1, and leaves to the user the business of generating the
| character codes required.
| 
| Generating such character codes could be a simple matter, if the T1
| encoding matched any widely-supported encoding standard, since in that
| case, one might expect one’s keyboard to generate the character
| codes. However, the T1 encoding is a mix of several standard encodings,
| and includes code points in areas of the table which standard encodings
| specifically exclude, so no T1 keyboards have been (or ever will be)
| manufactured.
| 
| By contrast, the fontenc package generates the T1 code points from
| ordinary LaTeX commands (e.g., it generates the é character codepoint
| from the command \’e). So, unless you have program-generated T1 input,
| use \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} rather than \usepackage{t1enc}.
`----

Nick

Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents - oops

[Erik Iverson]

Nick Dokos wrote:
> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have not followed this thread closely, so if the discussion ends
>> in something we should change in Org, please write to me and let me
>> know explicitly.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
> 
> Erik Iverson might have a different take but my take is that there is
> no major issue. Two minor issues:
> 
> One possible change to org is an addition to the documentation
> recommending the texlive-fonts-extra package: it includes the cm-super
> Type1 fonts - type1 fonts behave better with Evince (and possibly other
> PDF viewers) than type3 fonts.
> 

That would be my thought, too.  However, it appears that cm-super is
only "suggested" by texlive-fonts-extra, so in general
will not get installed with that package, unless you ask for
suggested packages also. (This is all Debian/Ubuntu by the way).

Both this system and MikTeX
offer cm-super as a standalone package, so perhaps just recommending
that package (cm-super) would suffice?  I confirmed that cm-super is
not one of the default MikTeX packages in a standard install, so
Windows users may benefit from this advice, too.

> The other possible change that Erik identified is the deletion of the
> t1enc package from the list of packages that org includes in exported
> LaTeX by default. I haven't tried without it, but it does indeed seem to
> be an obsolete remnant of times long past.

I have tried without it.  I was unable to to see any differences between
using \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} and adding the \usepackage{t1enc}
line. This makes sense given the FAQ answer below.

  The TeX FAQ
> (http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=t1enc ) says:
> 
> ,----
> | Why use fontenc rather than t1enc?
> | 
> | In the very earliest days of LaTeX2e, the only way to use the T1
> | encoding was t1enc; with the summer 1994 “production” release, the
> | fontenc package appeared, and provided comprehensive support for use of
> | the encoding.
> | 
> | Nevertheless, the t1enc package remains (as part of the LaTeX 2.09
> | compatibility code), but it does very little: it merely selects font
> | encoding T1, and leaves to the user the business of generating the
> | character codes required.
> | 
> | Generating such character codes could be a simple matter, if the T1
> | encoding matched any widely-supported encoding standard, since in that
> | case, one might expect one’s keyboard to generate the character
> | codes. However, the T1 encoding is a mix of several standard encodings,
> | and includes code points in areas of the table which standard encodings
> | specifically exclude, so no T1 keyboards have been (or ever will be)
> | manufactured.
> | 
> | By contrast, the fontenc package generates the T1 code points from
> | ordinary LaTeX commands (e.g., it generates the é character codepoint
> | from the command \’e). So, unless you have program-generated T1 input,
> | use \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} rather than \usepackage{t1enc}.
> `----
> 
> Nick

Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents - oops

[Nick Dokos]

Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu> wrote:

> That would be my thought, too.  However, it appears that cm-super is
> only "suggested" by texlive-fonts-extra, so in general
> will not get installed with that package, unless you ask for
> suggested packages also. (This is all Debian/Ubuntu by the way).
> 

Right. I was wrong about texlive-fonts-extra: you need to install the
cm-super package to get the cm-super fonts. I am investigating the
various fonts right now and will update the org-dependencies.org file on
Worg later on this week. We can also add a FAQ entry to point back to
org-dependencies - that should take care of the documentation changes,
right?

> Both this system and MikTeX
> offer cm-super as a standalone package, so perhaps just recommending
> that package (cm-super) would suffice?  I confirmed that cm-super is
> not one of the default MikTeX packages in a standard install, so
> Windows users may benefit from this advice, too.

Do windows users use evince? I'd think they mostly go with Acrobat Reader,
in which case they should have no problems with Type3 fonts.

> > The other possible change that Erik identified is the deletion of the
> > t1enc package from the list of packages that org includes in exported
> > LaTeX by default. I haven't tried without it, but it does indeed seem to
> > be an obsolete remnant of times long past.
> 
> I have tried without it.  I was unable to to see any differences between
> using \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} and adding the \usepackage{t1enc}
> line. This makes sense given the FAQ answer below.
> 

So getting rid of the \usepackage{t1enc} in org sounds like the right
thing to do (but including it does not hurt, so there is no urgency,
iiuc.)

Nick

>  The TeX FAQ
> > (http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=t1enc ) says:
> >
> > ,----
> > | Why use fontenc rather than t1enc?
> > | | In the very earliest days of LaTeX2e, the only way to use the T1
> > | encoding was t1enc; with the summer 1994 “production” release, the
> > | fontenc package appeared, and provided comprehensive support for use of
> > | the encoding.
> > | | Nevertheless, the t1enc package remains (as part of the LaTeX
> > 2.09
> > | compatibility code), but it does very little: it merely selects font
> > | encoding T1, and leaves to the user the business of generating the
> > | character codes required.
> > | | Generating such character codes could be a simple matter, if the
> > T1
> > | encoding matched any widely-supported encoding standard, since in that
> > | case, one might expect one’s keyboard to generate the character
> > | codes. However, the T1 encoding is a mix of several standard encodings,
> > | and includes code points in areas of the table which standard encodings
> > | specifically exclude, so no T1 keyboards have been (or ever will be)
> > | manufactured.
> > | | By contrast, the fontenc package generates the T1 code points
> > from
> > | ordinary LaTeX commands (e.g., it generates the é character codepoint
> > | from the command \’e). So, unless you have program-generated T1 input,
> > | use \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} rather than \usepackage{t1enc}.
> > `----
> >
> > Nick
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
> 

Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents - oops

[Joost Kremers]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:58:15AM -0400, Nick Dokos wrote:
> Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu> wrote:
> > Both this system and MikTeX
> > offer cm-super as a standalone package, so perhaps just recommending
> > that package (cm-super) would suffice?  I confirmed that cm-super is
> > not one of the default MikTeX packages in a standard install, so
> > Windows users may benefit from this advice, too.
> 
> Do windows users use evince? I'd think they mostly go with Acrobat Reader,
> in which case they should have no problems with Type3 fonts.

until they start sending their pdfs to other people, who might not be so
"lucky"... ;-)
 
Joost

-- 
Dr. Joost Kremers
Georg-August-Universität
Seminar für Deutsche Philologie
Käte-Hamburger-Weg 3
D-37073 Göttingen

Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents - oops

[Carsten Dominik]

On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:58 PM, Nick Dokos wrote:

> Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>> That would be my thought, too.  However, it appears that cm-super is
>> only "suggested" by texlive-fonts-extra, so in general
>> will not get installed with that package, unless you ask for
>> suggested packages also. (This is all Debian/Ubuntu by the way).
>>
>
> Right. I was wrong about texlive-fonts-extra: you need to install the
> cm-super package to get the cm-super fonts. I am investigating the
> various fonts right now and will update the org-dependencies.org  
> file on
> Worg later on this week. We can also add a FAQ entry to point back to
> org-dependencies - that should take care of the documentation changes,
> right?
>
>> Both this system and MikTeX
>> offer cm-super as a standalone package, so perhaps just recommending
>> that package (cm-super) would suffice?  I confirmed that cm-super is
>> not one of the default MikTeX packages in a standard install, so
>> Windows users may benefit from this advice, too.
>
> Do windows users use evince? I'd think they mostly go with Acrobat  
> Reader,
> in which case they should have no problems with Type3 fonts.
>
>>> The other possible change that Erik identified is the deletion of  
>>> the
>>> t1enc package from the list of packages that org includes in  
>>> exported
>>> LaTeX by default. I haven't tried without it, but it does indeed  
>>> seem to
>>> be an obsolete remnant of times long past.
>>
>> I have tried without it.  I was unable to to see any differences  
>> between
>> using \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} and adding the \usepackage{t1enc}
>> line. This makes sense given the FAQ answer below.
>>
>
> So getting rid of the \usepackage{t1enc} in org sounds like the right
> thing to do (but including it does not hurt, so there is no urgency,
> iiuc.)

OK, thanks to all of you - I have removed the t1enc entry now.

- Carsten

>
> Nick
>
>> The TeX FAQ
>>> (http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=t1enc ) says:
>>>
>>> ,----
>>> | Why use fontenc rather than t1enc?
>>> | | In the very earliest days of LaTeX2e, the only way to use the T1
>>> | encoding was t1enc; with the summer 1994 “production” release, the
>>> | fontenc package appeared, and provided comprehensive support for  
>>> use of
>>> | the encoding.
>>> | | Nevertheless, the t1enc package remains (as part of the LaTeX
>>> 2.09
>>> | compatibility code), but it does very little: it merely selects  
>>> font
>>> | encoding T1, and leaves to the user the business of generating the
>>> | character codes required.
>>> | | Generating such character codes could be a simple matter, if the
>>> T1
>>> | encoding matched any widely-supported encoding standard, since  
>>> in that
>>> | case, one might expect one’s keyboard to generate the character
>>> | codes. However, the T1 encoding is a mix of several standard  
>>> encodings,
>>> | and includes code points in areas of the table which standard  
>>> encodings
>>> | specifically exclude, so no T1 keyboards have been (or ever will  
>>> be)
>>> | manufactured.
>>> | | By contrast, the fontenc package generates the T1 code points
>>> from
>>> | ordinary LaTeX commands (e.g., it generates the é character  
>>> codepoint
>>> | from the command \’e). So, unless you have program-generated T1  
>>> input,
>>> | use \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} rather than \usepackage{t1enc}.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> Nick
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>>

- Carsten

Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents - oops

[Nick Dokos]

Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> wrote:


> On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:58 PM, Nick Dokos wrote:
> 
> > Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> That would be my thought, too.  However, it appears that cm-super is
> >> only "suggested" by texlive-fonts-extra, so in general
> >> will not get installed with that package, unless you ask for
> >> suggested packages also. (This is all Debian/Ubuntu by the way).
> >>
> >
> > Right. I was wrong about texlive-fonts-extra: you need to install the
> > cm-super package to get the cm-super fonts. I am investigating the
> > various fonts right now and will update the org-dependencies.org =20
> > file on
> > Worg later on this week. We can also add a FAQ entry to point back to
> > org-dependencies - that should take care of the documentation changes,
> > right?

I added a question to the FAQ with a pointer to a more extended (but still
incomplete) discussion in org-dependencies. I'll try to add more information
to the table later on this week.

Nick

> >
> >> Both this system and MikTeX
> >> offer cm-super as a standalone package, so perhaps just recommending
> >> that package (cm-super) would suffice?  I confirmed that cm-super is
> >> not one of the default MikTeX packages in a standard install, so
> >> Windows users may benefit from this advice, too.
> >
> > Do windows users use evince? I'd think they mostly go with Acrobat =20
> > Reader,
> > in which case they should have no problems with Type3 fonts.
> >
> >>> The other possible change that Erik identified is the deletion of =20=
> 
> >>> the
> >>> t1enc package from the list of packages that org includes in =20
> >>> exported
> >>> LaTeX by default. I haven't tried without it, but it does indeed =20
> >>> seem to
> >>> be an obsolete remnant of times long past.
> >>
> >> I have tried without it.  I was unable to to see any differences =20
> >> between
> >> using \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} and adding the \usepackage{t1enc}
> >> line. This makes sense given the FAQ answer below.
> >>
> >
> > So getting rid of the \usepackage{t1enc} in org sounds like the right
> > thing to do (but including it does not hurt, so there is no urgency,
> > iiuc.)
> 
> OK, thanks to all of you - I have removed the t1enc entry now.
> 
> - Carsten
> 
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >> The TeX FAQ
> >>> (http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=3Dt1enc ) says:
> >>>
> >>> ,----
> >>> | Why use fontenc rather than t1enc?
> >>> | | In the very earliest days of LaTeX2e, the only way to use the T1
> >>> | encoding was t1enc; with the summer 1994 =93production=94 release, =
> the
> >>> | fontenc package appeared, and provided comprehensive support for =20=
> 
> >>> use of
> >>> | the encoding.
> >>> | | Nevertheless, the t1enc package remains (as part of the LaTeX
> >>> 2.09
> >>> | compatibility code), but it does very little: it merely selects =20=
> 
> >>> font
> >>> | encoding T1, and leaves to the user the business of generating the
> >>> | character codes required.
> >>> | | Generating such character codes could be a simple matter, if the
> >>> T1
> >>> | encoding matched any widely-supported encoding standard, since =20
> >>> in that
> >>> | case, one might expect one=92s keyboard to generate the character
> >>> | codes. However, the T1 encoding is a mix of several standard =20
> >>> encodings,
> >>> | and includes code points in areas of the table which standard =20
> >>> encodings
> >>> | specifically exclude, so no T1 keyboards have been (or ever will =20=
> 
> >>> be)
> >>> | manufactured.
> >>> | | By contrast, the fontenc package generates the T1 code points
> >>> from
> >>> | ordinary LaTeX commands (e.g., it generates the =E9 character =20
> >>> codepoint
> >>> | from the command \=92e). So, unless you have program-generated T1 =20=
> 
> >>> input,
> >>> | use \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} rather than \usepackage{t1enc}.
> >>> `----
> >>>
> >>> Nick
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> >> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> >> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> >> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
> >>
> 
> - Carsten
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
> 

Re: a bit offtopic, fonts in exported PDF documents - oops

[Carsten Dominik]

On Aug 31, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Nick Dokos wrote:

> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 30, 2010, at 5:58 PM, Nick Dokos wrote:
>>
>>> Erik Iverson <eriki@ccbr.umn.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That would be my thought, too.  However, it appears that cm-super  
>>>> is
>>>> only "suggested" by texlive-fonts-extra, so in general
>>>> will not get installed with that package, unless you ask for
>>>> suggested packages also. (This is all Debian/Ubuntu by the way).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right. I was wrong about texlive-fonts-extra: you need to install  
>>> the
>>> cm-super package to get the cm-super fonts. I am investigating the
>>> various fonts right now and will update the org-dependencies.org =20
>>> file on
>>> Worg later on this week. We can also add a FAQ entry to point back  
>>> to
>>> org-dependencies - that should take care of the documentation  
>>> changes,
>>> right?
>
> I added a question to the FAQ with a pointer to a more extended (but  
> still
> incomplete) discussion in org-dependencies. I'll try to add more  
> information
> to the table later on this week.

Thanks Nick!

- Carsten


>
> Nick
>
>>>
>>>> Both this system and MikTeX
>>>> offer cm-super as a standalone package, so perhaps just  
>>>> recommending
>>>> that package (cm-super) would suffice?  I confirmed that cm-super  
>>>> is
>>>> not one of the default MikTeX packages in a standard install, so
>>>> Windows users may benefit from this advice, too.
>>>
>>> Do windows users use evince? I'd think they mostly go with Acrobat  
>>> =20
>>> Reader,
>>> in which case they should have no problems with Type3 fonts.
>>>
>>>>> The other possible change that Erik identified is the deletion  
>>>>> of =20=
>>
>>>>> the
>>>>> t1enc package from the list of packages that org includes in =20
>>>>> exported
>>>>> LaTeX by default. I haven't tried without it, but it does indeed  
>>>>> =20
>>>>> seem to
>>>>> be an obsolete remnant of times long past.
>>>>
>>>> I have tried without it.  I was unable to to see any differences  
>>>> =20
>>>> between
>>>> using \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} and adding the \usepackage{t1enc}
>>>> line. This makes sense given the FAQ answer below.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So getting rid of the \usepackage{t1enc} in org sounds like the  
>>> right
>>> thing to do (but including it does not hurt, so there is no urgency,
>>> iiuc.)
>>
>> OK, thanks to all of you - I have removed the t1enc entry now.
>>
>> - Carsten
>>
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>>> The TeX FAQ
>>>>> (http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=3Dt1enc ) says:
>>>>>
>>>>> ,----
>>>>> | Why use fontenc rather than t1enc?
>>>>> | | In the very earliest days of LaTeX2e, the only way to use  
>>>>> the T1
>>>>> | encoding was t1enc; with the summer 1994 =93production=94  
>>>>> release, =
>> the
>>>>> | fontenc package appeared, and provided comprehensive support  
>>>>> for =20=
>>
>>>>> use of
>>>>> | the encoding.
>>>>> | | Nevertheless, the t1enc package remains (as part of the LaTeX
>>>>> 2.09
>>>>> | compatibility code), but it does very little: it merely  
>>>>> selects =20=
>>
>>>>> font
>>>>> | encoding T1, and leaves to the user the business of generating  
>>>>> the
>>>>> | character codes required.
>>>>> | | Generating such character codes could be a simple matter, if  
>>>>> the
>>>>> T1
>>>>> | encoding matched any widely-supported encoding standard, since  
>>>>> =20
>>>>> in that
>>>>> | case, one might expect one=92s keyboard to generate the  
>>>>> character
>>>>> | codes. However, the T1 encoding is a mix of several standard =20
>>>>> encodings,
>>>>> | and includes code points in areas of the table which standard  
>>>>> =20
>>>>> encodings
>>>>> | specifically exclude, so no T1 keyboards have been (or ever  
>>>>> will =20=
>>
>>>>> be)
>>>>> | manufactured.
>>>>> | | By contrast, the fontenc package generates the T1 code points
>>>>> from
>>>>> | ordinary LaTeX commands (e.g., it generates the =E9 character  
>>>>> =20
>>>>> codepoint
>>>>> | from the command \=92e). So, unless you have program-generated  
>>>>> T1 =20=
>>
>>>>> input,
>>>>> | use \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} rather than \usepackage{t1enc}.
>>>>> `----
>>>>>
>>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>>>> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>>>> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>>>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>>>>
>>
>> - Carsten
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>>

- Carsten