On 14.02.2008 16:24:40 The Web Maestro wrote:
> In addition to Acrobat 6,7,8,+, Apple QuickView & Evince, I would
> think nice to have:
> - Acrobat Reader 5 (last version for Mac OS 9 Classic)
> - Apple Preview 10.4 (probably similar to QuickView)
> - Preview for 10.3 (Panther) would be nice too...

People are allowed to test with all the PDF viewers they want. I have no
Mac so I can't test any of these.

> Is it possible the PDF code for option 1 could be 'cleaned up' in the
> future (or does it matter)?

Sorry, but I don't know what you mean. What's there to clean up?

> Clay
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/13/08, Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just some details what each approach will produce:
> >
> > #1 produces a /CIDFontType0 CIDFont [1] and a /Type0 Composite Font
> > referencing the former.
> >
> > #2 produces one or more /Type1 fonts.
> >
> > [1] for TrueType we produce a CIDFontType2 CIDFont and a /Type0
> > Composite font for each TrueType font. OpenOffice produces one or more
> > /TrueType fonts for each TrueType font.
> >
> > #1 would always generate a CID font for simplicity. What you propose is
> > basically a "#2a", i.e. produce a /Type1 font if the document stays
> > within the default encoding of the font. If additional characters are
> > used FOP would switch to CID fonts instead of producing a /Type1 font.
> > So this needs elements from #1 and #2. Possible and probably makes sense
> > if CID fonts work in the first place. I like it.
> >
> > BTW, I just found out that I have to generate a ToUnicode CMap if a
> > Type1 font doesn't use one of the encodings that are predefined in the
> > PDF spec. So a little more work for me there.
> >
> > On 13.02.2008 11:57:34 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> > > Hi Jeremias,
> > >
> > > With solution #1, if I happen to use only the glyphs from the font that
> > > are available in its default encoding, will the resulting PDF be the
> > > same as in solution #2?
> > > What I mean is, will feature-incomplete PDF readers be able to display
> > > it? In which case this wouldn't be that bad.
> > >
> > > Anyway, solution #1 also looks cleaner to me, so go for it. If that
> > > means that I'll have to create a RFE for my favourite PDF reader, then
> > > I'll do it ;-)
> > >
> > > Vincent
> > >
> > >
> > > Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > > > I've been asked to look into the possibility to support unusual
> > > > encodings (like Cyrillic) with Type 1 fonts. Right now we only support
> > > > WinAnsiEncoding (plus special handling for Symbol and ZapfDingbats).
> > > >
> > > > I already have an AFM parser. The AFM parser is the precondition to
> > > > safely support non-standard encodings as only this file contains the
> > > > glyph list of a font.
> > > >
> > > > I'm now on a good way to support non-WinAnsi encodings since I can now
> > > > build CodePointMapping instances from an AFM file. I then have to teach
> > > > the PDF and PS renderers to make use of these special encodings.
> > > >
> > > > That's step 1, but it will only make the font's native encoding
> > > > available in FOP. The number of available glyphs for a Type 1 font will
> > > > still remain under 255 (typicaly under 223 as the first 32 chars are
> > > > usually not used). To support all glyphs of a Type 1 font we need more
> > > > and I found two possible ways to pursue:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Treat Type 1 fonts as CID fonts.
> > > >
> > > > + Probably the cleaner approach.
> > > > + All glyphs are supported under one single font (no font renderer-level
> > > >   font switching required, see below)
> > > > - Makes the generated PDF/PS code a little less readable but that's not
> > > >   important.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Do something like OpenOffice when handling fonts with more than 255
> > > > chars: Create multiple single-byte encodings which map to the same base
> > > > font. This will require an 1:n relationship from font to char mapping
> > > > which the renderers also have to handle. The first encoding will be
> > > > equal to the font's default encoding (PDF calls that the "implicit base
> > > > encoding"). The other encoding(s) will be built from the rest of the
> > > > available characters. In the renderer it will be necessary to switch
> > > > fonts from one character to another (not the same as switching from
> > > > Helvetica to Symbol, i.e. not at FO level, but at renderer level).
> > > >
> > > > + Higher compatibility with PDF viewers which are not yet
> > > >   feature-complete.
> > > > + Keeps the generated PDF/PS code more readable (not important)
> > > > - Switching between derived fonts (i.e. font with a common base font but
> > > >   with special encodings) is necessary. SingleByteFont needs to be split
> > > >   in two classes.
> > > >
> > > > An example: The "Baskerville Cyrillic" font contains 264
> > > > characters/glyphs. The default encoding only contains 221 characters. So
> > > > 43 additional characters can be made available like this.
> > > >
> > > > I'm currently leaning towards CID fonts as it is probably the cleaner
> > > > approach. Both solutions are probably pretty much the same in terms of
> > > > effort. The CID approach will take more work in the PS renderer and the
> > > > multi-encoding approach will make changes necessary in FOP's font
> > > > library.
> > > >
> > > > If anyone has thoughts on this, I'd appreciate it. I'll finish the
> > > > changes for supporting the default encodings and then finish the
> > > > processing feedback stuff before I finish this here.
> > > >
> > > > Jeremias Maerki
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Vincent Hennebert                            Anyware Technologies
> > > http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert         http://www.anyware-tech.com
> > > Apache FOP Committer                         FOP Development/Consulting
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jeremias Maerki
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
> 
> Regards,
> 
> The Web Maestro
> -- 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - <http://homepage.mac.com/webmaestro/>
> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
> - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet




Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to