Hi Maestro, The bug you asked for is commited and the information you posted below looks correct to me. I hope this clears up some stuff (but I even hope more that in FOP 1.0 the eps's will allways show op in acrobat programs ;-).
Cheers, Wouter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clay Leeds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 5:59 PM Subject: Re: PDF->PS->PDF with EPS > Wouter, > > FWIW, I would like to add that I've actually changed the graphics page > already (I haven't COMMITTED the changes so you won't see them on the > site yet). Please read the changes below, and help me make certain it > adequately addresses the issue. I'm posting the entire EPS section > below (the main addition is the new <warning> item toward the > bottom--does anything else need to be changed?): > > <section id="eps"> > <title>EPS</title> > <p>FOP provides support for two output targets:</p> > <ul> > <li>PostScript (full support).</li> > <li> > PDF (partial support). Due to the lack of a built-in PostScript > interpreter, FOP > can only embed the EPS file into the PDF. Acrobat Reader will not > currently display > the EPS (it doesn't have a PostScript interpreter, either) but it > will be shown > correctly when you print the PDF on a PostScript-capable printer. > PostScript devices > (including <link > href="http://www.ghostscript.com/";>GhostScript</link>) will render the > EPS correctly. > </li> > </ul> > <warning>When using <link > href="http://www.ghostscript.com/";>GhostScript</link> to display inline > EPS, it has been <link > href="http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=108912901400002&r=1&w=2";>reported > that more recent versions have problems rendering inline EPS</link>. > Therefore it is recommended to use <link > href="http://www.ghostscript.com/doc/gnu/gnu706.htm";>Ghostscript > 7.06</link>. If anyone has a solution to this problem, please send an > e-mail to the FOP-User <link > href="http://xml.apache.org/fop/maillist.html";>mailing > list</link>.</warning> > <p> > Other output targets can't be supported at the moment because > FOP lacks a PostScript interpreter. > </p> > </section> > > I would also like to add, that my reason for asking Wouter to create a > Bugzilla entry also deals with the fact that it would be nice to 'fix' > the underlying problem (not just document it! :-D), and if we don't > have a bugzilla report, it might not end up on our 'radar'... > > Thanks in advance for reporting this and any help you can provide! > > Web Maestro Clay > > On Jul 8, 2004, at 7:25 AM, Clay Leeds wrote: > > On Jul 8, 2004, at 12:08 AM, Wouter de Vaal wrote: > >> Thanx! We switched from 8.11 to 7.06 and it also works with us now! > >> > >> Maybe something to add on the site? > >> > >> Regards, > >> Wouter de Vaal > > > > Would you please file a BUG in bugzilla[1] so this issue can be > > tracked? It would help if you could test using other versions of > > Ghostscript, and include that information in your report. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Web Maestro Clay > > > > [1] > > http://xml.apache.org/fop/bugs.html > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
