It's not on my list, sorry. But you've got the source code. :-) On 13.06.2006 09:47:12 Raphael Parree wrote: > Jeremias, > > You are right when zooming in the text looks better, and indeed the printing > quality is good. > > However we also generate a PDF which is used as a presentation and is > therefore not printed. Having both a presentation and a book was actually > the reason to move to SVG as they scale well in printed form as on screen. > :( > > Will the code be refined in the near future :) > > Tx., > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 13 June 2006 08:52 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: SVG Font quality > > As I suspected. The SVG contains tspan elements which are rendered as > shapes by 0.92beta to be on the safe side. What you're seeing is only > the effect of painting vector graphics (as opposed to painting text). If > you zoom in on the text the quality will get better. It doesn't look bad > if you print it, does it? > > Some SVG text elements are difficult to be painted using text operators > in PDF so that's when we fall back to painting as shapes (prime example: > text on a path). The tspan element in your case are pretty simple which > could actually allow painting as text but the code is not that refined, > yet. The regression from 0.20.5 can be explained that 0.20.5 didn't care > much about tspan elements which could lead to poor output. 0.92 is more > careful. > > On 12.06.2006 18:03:49 Raphael Parree wrote: > > Jeremias, > > > > Attached is the SVG. The PDF viewer I'm using is Adobe Acrobat > > (7.something). The quality used to be great with the FOP 0.20.5 bundle. I > > would assume it is a batik problem, if the batik-1.6-squiggle viewer would > > not show the rendered SVG in the appropriate quality. > > > > Cheers., > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 07 June 2006 09:59 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: SVG Font quality > > > > The GIF helps showing the symptom but not the reason for the problem. > > Fonts can generally be rendered in two ways: text operations and vector > > graphics. In your case, I assume the text was rendered as vector > > graphics. If "smooth line art" is disabled (or not supported) in your > > PDF viewer, it could explain the poorer quality. It could help to see > > your SVG file. But also note that some text elements cannot be painted > > as text operations, yet. The choice which kind is used depends on the > > SVG content. > > > > On 06.06.2006 13:11:41 Raphael Parree wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I noticed the quality of my fonts in the SVG is noticeably less in 0.92b > > > than in was with 0.20.5. > > > > > > Attached is an example (left is the PDF, right is batik-1.6-squiggle). I > > am > > > embedding the fonts (Verdana) in my PDF. > > > > > > The SVG is included using defaults (with 72 as the resolution). > > > > > > > > > Any clues?
Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
