I had found PDF image in postscript (presumably whatever conversion is going
on) so poor that I presumed it was not meant to work. I have pretty much coded
around it converting the PDFs to images myself.
Arguably it has been a while since a test - I will see if I can find my old
tests and dust them off.
The font thing will be handy - although I have been getting good at managing
TTF and type 1 fonts finally ;-)
Thanks for getting back to me
On 08/08/2012, at 11:11 PM, Chris Bowditch <bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/08/2012 12:16, Martin Edge wrote:
> Hi Martin
>> Does it work a little better with postscript now?
> I'm sorry but I don't recall exactly what issues you were having with
> Postscript output with FOP? Can you be more specific. There have been several
> bug fixes to FOP generated PS since the v1.0 release. The biggest change is
> the introduction of support for embedding TTF Fonts in the Postscript.
>> Martin Edge
>> On 08/08/2012, at 8:20 PM, Chris Bowditch <bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 08/08/2012 02:47, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>> Hi Glenn,
>>>> I'd like to survey folks to see what, if any bugs or issues you believe
>>>> are *essential* to be addressed in fop1.1rc1 prior to releasing fop1.1.
>>>> There has been a suggestion to update fop-pdf-images prior to an fop1.1
>>>> release. Is there someone who would volunteer to do that [real soon now]?
>>>> Or is it better to wait until after fop1.1 is released? Any other "must
>>>> fix" bugs in 1.1rc1?
>>> Thanks for starting this discussion. I have been meaning to send a similar
>>> e-mail for the last couple of days. In my view the PDF Image Loading issue
>>> (53468) is high priority. A lot of users will want to use this plug-in with
>>> FOP. We are big users of the plug-in too, but don't use the released FOP
>>> I can assign Rob to work on it since he is available, but he is not a
>>> committer so won't be able to process the Patch already submitted to 53468.
>>> Vincent can work on it in about 2 weeks time, so I guess who does it
>>> depends on your definition of "real soon now"?
>>> I guess your call for volunteers means you don't have any free time to
>>> invest in that yourself?
>>> I'm not aware of any other high priority bugs. User feedback on 1.1rc1
>>> appears to be a little muted compared to previous releases. Hopefully that
>>> is a sign of improved code quality.