TTF driver: printing in PS file incorrect with some fonts

[nschulux]

I have replaced Nimbus Sans with Hinting Info but now it's printed faulty in PS file. Perhaps Kerning faulty ? Original Font make same fault.

Font in previous Version was printed correcty in PS file.

New Font with Hinting:

Old Font :

[jirkakunze]

The font Nimbus Sans Regular in the repository has no kerning table. I assume you have added kerning information to your version of the font. Can you post your version of the font here to analyze it?

[nschulux]

Old Font that Works. nimbsre.zip

How can i see if Kerning is in the Font ? Original TTF Font (no Fontquirrel) makes same fault.

[jirkakunze]

Not all fonts are affected:

affected:

• Nimbus Sans (has no kerning table)
• NYT Franklin (has no kerning table)
• Century 59 (has no kerning table)
• Cooper* Black (has no kerning table)
• Futura (has kerning)

@nschulux With which version of the TTF driver (creation date) did you successfully test the scenario?

[nschulux]

I am not sure when we testet , but I am not sure if we tested the Printing.

I have sayed to Falk that some Fonts have Fault prints.

The Nimbus Sans that is OK has no Hintings.

I Attache you the Font.

I can't see the Kerning Info.

If I print toPS with Postscipt kompatibel that Works so:

Fonts are from here:

ArtifexSoftware/urw-base35-fonts: Repo for URW++ base 35 font set (github.com)

from Nico

Am 16.07.2024 um 10:58 schrieb Jirka Kunze @.***>:

Not all fonts are affected: grafik.png (view on web)

affected: Nimbus Sans (has no kerning table) NYT Franklin (has no kerning table) Century 59 (has no kerning table) Cooper* Black (has no kerning table) Futura (has kerning)

@nschulux With which version of the TTF driver (creation date) did you successfully test the scenario?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.

[nschulux]

Could it be the Hinting information that makes this Error ?

I can't add kerning I can not work with fonts.

from Nico

Am 15.07.2024 um 22:55 schrieb Jirka Kunze @.***>:

The font Nimbus Sans Regular in the repository has no kerning table. I assume you have added kerning information to your version of the font. Can you post your version of the font here to analyze it?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.

[nschulux]

I have now found a way to solve the Issue , with FontForge I open the ttf and has created a Codepage Geos. Only Nimbus Sans no chance it was terrible slow in the Help so i used Nimbus SansL changed the Name and this works. I cant see if there is Kerning but they have Hinting information. Create the Font from source and print now with GhostScript to PS correctly.

[nschulux]

Now i have seen Fonts print not always in Bold : In Geowrite they are displayed correctly ! Fonts also in Windows shown correctly ! Checked all Font Subfamilies are OK. The Printed PS Files are differently : PS-File Nimbus Sans : SPM newpath [1 0 0 1 57 57] SOT [ [(Das ist ein Test) {0 0 0 SGC } 0 /X520020 false 12 [1.125 0 0 1 0 0] ] ] 0 87.9258 0 45 DSG

X520020 contains Font-characters : /X520020 exch definefont pop

PS-File: Mono SPM newpath [1 0 0 1 57 57] SOT [ [(Das ist ein Test) {0 0 0 SGC } 0 /Courier-Bold true 12 [1 0 0 1 0 0] ] ] 0 115.125 0 44 DSG

[jirkakunze]

As I only have a little information, I can only speculate. The print with Nimbus Sans looks as if the style bold and bold/italic were calculated by the driver. This may be because these styles were not found. If I remember correctly, you have renamed the Nimbus Sans L font to Nimbus Sans. This could be the problem, because the font family name is used to create the font ID. If the styles have a different family name (a typing error is enough), then a different font ID is also calculated and for GEOS this is then a different font.

I do not understand the sense or purpose of this renaming. Why is it a problem if the font is called Nimbus Sans L?

[nschulux]

In PC/GEOS Geowrite the Font is shown correctly the rename was better to replace URW Sans and Displays correct in the Font Tool. It was also Falk who found this better.

[nschulux]

I have tried the Nimbus SanL without modifiecations :

[nschulux]

Here the two PS files NMONO4.PS and NSANS4.PS look inside with TextEditor at my advice the PS Driver doesen't handle the Bold not correctly. spoolPS.zip

[jirkakunze]

Problem found why the horizontal position is not correct when printing PS. I hope I can submit a PR for this at the weekend.

[nschulux]

Great Work !!! With wich Font You tested ? With them in the Build ? Should I close the PR with Updated Fonts ! What is with the BOLD in PS Printing ?

[jirkakunze]

I have tested the fix with different fonts (Futura, original Nimbus Sans L, Cooper*Black, PT Mono, PT Sans). Unfortunately, the incorrect printing of the bold style has not been corrected. I have not yet investigated where this problem is. After correcting the horizontal position when printing, I will continue to work on the problem in the bytecode interpreter. If the bytecode interpreter runs in the driver, the driver is functionally complete and I can continue with bug fixes and optimizations.

[nschulux]

Please test the Font Nimbus Sans from ArtifexSoftware/urw-base35-fonts: Repo for URW++ base 35 font set this I found look better in Bold.