You should look for error messages from the viewers or obviously wrong results. I've just uploaded a PNG which show the three variants and the differences in between. This is the expected output (with explanations). Caution: the PNG is >1MB! Anyway, the output from the viewers you tested is obviously fine.
http://people.apache.org/~jeremias/fop/type1-demo/changes-explained.png Another thing that could be tested is if copy/paste of the text into a Unicode-capable (!) application is possible. Adobe Acrobat seems to have a problem in certain cases but that's more a bug there than in FOP because other tools can extract the text just fine. On 02.03.2008 07:39:41 The Web Maestro wrote: > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For those, who want to test PDF viewer compatibility I have a demo PDF > > which demonstrates Type 1 "step 2" implemented with solution 2 (multiple > > descendant fonts with dynamic encoding build-up). > > > > http://people.apache.org/~jeremias/fop/type1-demo/ > > - [1] font-type1-demo-before.pdf (revision 627678, before I added the AFM > > stuff, i.e. step 1) > > - [2] font-type1-demo-step1.pdf (current FOP Trunk HEAD) > > - [3] font-type1-demo-step2.pdf (my local working copy) > > I'm not sure what exactly to look for, but I've taken screenshots of > the 3 versions open Mac OS X 10.4.x Preview v3.0.9 & Acrobat 8.1.2: > > http://people.apache.org/~clay/fop/type1-demo/ > > HTH! > > 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
