[Groff] Re: groff + mp

[Michail Vidiassov]

Dear Werner,

On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Werner LEMBERG wrote:

> >   Please, take a look at the file, produced by fixgrofffonts.awk.
> >   Is it a valid eps file?
>
> From the point of DSC, your grdemo.ps file isn't.
>
>  . According to the DSC it is better to use %%DocumentNeededResources
>    and %%DocumentSuppliedResources than %%DocumentNeededFonts and
>    %%DocumentSuppliedFonts.  Consequently, the %%DocumentFonts line
>    is no longer necessary.
>
>  . %%BeginResource: font ... %%EndResource blocks should be put into
>    the %%BeginSetup ... %%EndSetup section (which comes after the
>    %%BeginProlog ... %%EndProlog section).
OK

>  . The definition of /RE belongs into the %%BeginSetup ... %%EndSetup
>    section.
Or, maybe, to %%BeginProlog %%BeginResource: procset ... %%EndResource 
%%EndProlog?

>  . A `%%BeginProlog' declaration is missing.
An old metapost version.
BTW. %%EndComments is also missing.
And Prolog seems to be abused.
Font name definitions are not to be there (AFAI understand your comments
and DSC 3 document from Adobe).
May be it is the result of DSC ver 1 conformance from prehistoric times.
Time to make a  bug report to metapost people? 
>  . You are missing the `%%IncludeResource: font XXX' lines (within
>    the %%BeginSetup ... %EndSetup section) for all fonts not embedded
>    in the document.
>
>  . A line `%%DocumentSuppliedResources: encoding groffEncoding' is
>    missing (using the new groff.enc version).
OK
> > Some comments on what you have said:
> >   . The file `trchars.adj' is intentionally an empty file.  It is
> >     needed by `mpost' (the MetaPost binary).
> >
> > Comment: my patch to dmp makes it unnecessary
>
> I know that, but not everybody has this.
>
> >   . For the moment, `groffmp.sh' expects input files in the current
> >     directory.  Note that its output is not intended as a standalone
> >     file; it must be embedded into a groff document to give its PS
> >     front end, `grops', a chance to include all needed resources.
> >
> > Comment: fixgroffonts.awk makes a standalone file
>
> Yes, this is an alternative.  Probably both scripts should be provided
> (or rather, unified, with a proper command line option).
>
> >    Or name tfm files with full PS font names, thus avoiding mapping.
>
> Hmm, I like the other solution more.
I see a difference in approaches.
You are after metapost for groff (metapost pictures in groff document),
 while I am after groff for metapost (groff-made labels in metapost 
output).
I want us to try to push groff support into the next metapost version.
I do not think that it is possible to make some "contrib" set
of files to make groff work with output of arbitrary TeX setup.
(PS font names as filenames was a step in that diction, since
it allowed to be orthogonal to psfonts.map and TeX font naming issues).

BTW. why your sed script downloads groffEncoding into the ps file?
Since the ps file is bound to end up as a part of groff document,
 ENC0 may be used.

One more question:
why reencoding is done in 2 steps:
 /Times-Roman-groff groffEncoding /Times-Roman RE
 /groftr /Times-Roman-groff def

     Sincerely, Michail

PS. New awk script attached.

fixgrofffonts.awk
Description: Text document