Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!usc!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!cadre.dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!unix.cis.pitt.edu!jbw From: jbw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jingbai Wang) Newsgroups: comp.text Subject: Re: TeX gf,pk,pxl files Keywords: TeX,pk,pxl,gf,metafont Message-ID: <19703@unix.cis.pitt.edu> Date: 23 Sep 89 23:25:02 GMT References: <251AB757.452@marob.masa.com> Reply-To: jbw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jingbai Wang) Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services Lines: 25 In article <251AB757.452@marob.masa.com> samperi@marob.masa.com (Dominick Samperi) writes: >Considering the fact that many device drivers (dvi2ps, dvijet, dvi2ln3, >etc.) look for different types of pixel files (gf,pk,pxl), how is one >to avoid keeping a full complement of pixel files for all interesting >sizes, three times? Is there a set of drivers (for postscript and >laserjet, at least) that use the same type of pixel files? Wouldn't it >be reasonable if everyone just used gf files, to avoid confusion? METAFONT produces TFM and GF files, and GF format can converted into PK and PXL formats. According the trend, PXL is already obsolete, and the standard is going be to PK instead of GF. Pk files are much smaller than GF files carrying exactly the same amount of information and all in binary. Why should we still stick to GF? After TeX 2.94 (UNIX), I think the standard font files are distributed in PK instead of GF. Beebe's colloection of dvi->* can recognize all of the formats, and you can find them in science.utah.edu. JB Wang jbw@pittvms.bitnet jbw@cisunx.UUCP