MetaType1 is a system devised to create PostScript Type 1 fonts from MetaPost sources, similar in spirit to Knuth's original MetaFont but producing outline fonts instead of bitmaps. It comprises a set of MetaPost macros and AWK scripts, and its typical output is a TFM file, which expresses the font metric information to be used by TeX itself, and a PFB file containing the glyphs, which is needed by dvips or the PDF backend of pdfTeX and LuaTeX. Latin Modern is perhaps the best-known font created with MetaType1.

Fonts in OpenType format can also be generated from there, and are sometimes distributed along with the Type 1 versions. The Latin Modern package in TeX Live, for instance, includes both the Type 1 and OpenType versions.

My question, as the title states, is whether the OpenType flavor of fonts created with MetaType1 carries any information that the Type 1 flavor doesn't. In particular, I would be interested to know whether the PFB file contains all the glyphs of the font, as the OTF file does (instead of, say, 256, as is the case with TFM files in the metrics area).

As for the use case, I need to produce both PostScript and PDF output (I am using LuaTeX). Since dvips cannot cope with OpenType files, I have to resort to the Type 1 versions when producing the DVI. Thus, I would like to know if I may expect no difference in output. Furthermore, if the PFB versions are exactly like the OTF ones (sans metric information), I could just use the former when producing the PDF as well.

  • 2
    why don't you just generate the pdf document and save it as postscript using ghostview (or any pdf reader that can print to a postscript printer) – David Carlisle Oct 7 '17 at 17:15
  • 3
    @Fran The underlying question is whether it is possible to obtain the same output regardless of the output format (DVI or PDF). Since this requirement of reproducibility motivated and motivates TeX's development, I don't think it is so 'paranoid' a question. As for quality, I just wouldn't want to miss out on OpenType features not present in the Type 1 version. – Kalrish Oct 8 '17 at 12:32
  • 1
    @Kalrish Reasons to create DVI in the past are now discouraged in PSTricks web site or surpassed (EPS to PDF automatic conversion) whereas there are good reasons to not produce DVI files (your pointed to OTF, but some JPG, PNG or PDF images are also powerful reasons). But the main point is that nobody outside the TeX microcosmos know about DVI format and how view/print DVI files. I do not think you're paranoid. Is just that in several years as user I never had any reason to pay attention to this format. – Fran Oct 8 '17 at 16:49
  • 2
    you are far more likely to get different layout if you make the pdf by pdflatex and the postscript by latex+dvips. packages such as graphics, color, and especially hyperref have different features via the two routes, links breaking with pdftex and not breaking with latex+dvips will affect linebreaking so the layout of the whole document. – David Carlisle Oct 9 '17 at 21:14
  • 1
    you might be interested in github.com/vtex-soft/texlive.xdvipsk – David Carlisle Oct 10 '17 at 0:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.