[metapost] problem with 'dvips mproof'
mailing_list at arcor.de
Mon Oct 11 14:36:52 CEST 2010
Am 10.10.2010 02:52, schrieb Reinhard Kotucha:
> If you want to post-process the file with dvips, set prologues := 0
> (or not at all). Then you'll see a comment line
> %*Font: cmr10 9.96265 9.96265 65:8003
> in the created PostScript file. This line is evaluated by dvips and
> allows dvips to insert the fonts. Its format is explained on page 29
> of the dvips manual.
> With prologues> 0 metapost creates (more or less) standalone
> PostScript files. Standalone means that either the font is embedded
> or is included by the PS interpreter itself.
> BTW, the prologues variable might be confusing because you have to
> remember what all the values are good for. But it's probably helpful
> to know that Metapost was designed to support dvips in the first
Two questions to help me understand MetaPost-dvips interaction better:
1. Is my understanding correct, that the line
%*Font: cmr10 9.96265 9.96265 65:8003
is no standard PostScript (besides being a comment), but a
convention MetaPost and dvips developers (Hobby & Rokicki)
agreed upon for referring to TeX fonts back in time?
2. To quote from mpman as of MetaPost v0.641 (somehow that
paragraph became deleted in mpman):
> Giving this internal variable a positive value causes causes output
> to be formatted as "structured PostScript" generated on the
> assumption that text comes from built-in PostScript fonts. This makes
> MetaPost output much more portable, but it has an important drawback:
> It generally does not work when you use TEX fonts, since programs
> that translate TEX output into PostScript need to make special
> provisions for TEX fonts in included
gures and the standard
> PostScript structuring rules do not allow for this.
The special provisions referred to is embedding encoding
vectors into EPSF files (supported by setting prologues to 2
since MetaPost v1.000). True of false?
More information about the metapost