Re: Epstopdf and Lucida fonts in labels

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Taco Hoekwater wrote:

> If you are not interested in investigating available solutions,
> you can of course invent your own.

I don't quite get your point.  TeX, dvips, and ImageMagick are all
available.  All I've done is combine them.  Other suggestions specifically
involved PDF, which I'm not particularly interested in.  I'm perfectly
happy to use `ps2pdf' to convert PS to PDF.

> But clearly you have not
> read the PostScript manuals,

I've already stated that I know virtually nothing about the PostScript
language.  I've had a couple of books out of the library, but it hasn't
seemed urgent to learn it, since I've been able to muddle through without
it, so far, as in this case.

> or you would not have to use new
> vocabularies like 'standard postscript' to express the semantic
> entity Adobe calls 'Encapsulated PostScript [File]' or EPS[F],
> for short.

I got the impression that standard PostScript was a synonym for structured
PostScript, or perhaps the correct term.  I believe I read the term
last night in the dvips manual and that this
kind of PostScript format differs from Encapsulated PostScript.
In particular, I don't believe it's possible to include a structured PS
file, say, generated by means of TeX and dvips, in another TeX file using
`\epsffile'.  I'm not double-checking this, and I
think it's conceivable that there's some way of making it work.

> PS You are aware of the fact that PostScript is not what you would
> call 'free', right? It is just as proprietary as PDF; both being
> designed, published, copyrighted, trademarked and controlled by
> Adobe Inc.

Documentation for GNU packages can be distributed as PostScript and PDF
files, so apparently the FSF/GNU Project doesn't have a problem with
them.  This is good enough for me.  I use the term "Free Software" in the
sense of the GNU General Public License.  I am not trying to impose my
views on anyone.  I was responding to a specific suggestion made by
Laurent S.

Laurence