Justus,

would you mind doing the same test again with FOP Trunk (from the SVN
repo, you have to build yourself)? I've fixed a few things with fonts
support since 0.94. At least, the embedded font names are now as
required by the PDF spec (you can see in the table below the different
naming of the subset fonts). I'm not sure if that was already it but
it's a good thing to check.

About "copy/paste": Shame on us. This is outdated and needs to be
removed as it has been fixed. I'll do that later.

About the subset indicator: That may have been fixed by the changes
mentioned above.

On 18.01.2008 13:09:15 Justus-bulk wrote:
> Jeremias,
> 
> Trying to isolate the culprit, I did some more experiments, with mixed
> results.
> 
> I created a text file containing eight of my installed TrueType fonts
> in both XSL-FO and in OpenOffice, and created PDFs using Fop 0.94 and
> OOo's PDF export, respectively (see
> http://www.intelsig.be/~piater/nobackup/fop/).
> 
> The results in a nutshell:
> 
> - The Fop-generated PDF is displayed only partially by all of my
>   open-source PDF renderers (xpdf, gv, kpdf, evince).
> 
>   Fonts rendered correctly:
>   - BitstreamVeraSerif
>   - DejaVuSerif
>   - LiberationSerif
>   - GentiumBasic (downloaded from SIL's Web site)
> 
>   Fonts rendered invisibly (but copy-and-pastable nevertheless):
>   - FreeSerif
>   - cmr10 (from latex-xft-fonts)
>   - LinuxLibertine
>   - STIXGeneral (OTF from stixfonts.org converted to TTF using fontforge)
> 
> - The Fop-generated PDF is read correctly by Acroread 8.
> 
> - All fonts are correctly read and displayed by both OOo and ftview
>   (the FreeType2 font viewer).
> 
> - The OOo-generated PDF is read correctly by *all* viewers.
> 
> 
> There is no obvious conclusion:
> 
> - It does not seem to be a Fop problem, since Acroread is unaffected.
> 
> - It does not seem to be a FreeType problem, since all my open-source
>   programs link against it, including the unaffected OOo and ftview.
> 
> - And yet, all open-source viewers consistently fail on the
>   Fop-generated output only.
> 
> 
> Two related comments:
> 
> - The remarks on http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/0.94/fonts.html
>   that character encoding is "Never correct" and copy/paste "won't
>   work" seem overly strong; both mostly work for me, including
>   non-ASCII characters (albeit with different gotchas depending
>   whether I paste into, say, Emacs or a terminal).
> 
> - That same page says that TrueType fonts are embedded as subsets, but
>   pdffonts disagrees (see below).
> 
> 
> Not being a font expert, I am stuck for now. Before I file a bug
> against Fop, where could I take this?
> 
> Or perhaps other Fop users can share relevant insight regarding the
> use of TrueType Unicode fonts with Fop?
> 
> Thanks,
> Justus
> 
> 
> pdffonts on Fop output:
> 
> name                                 type              emb sub uni object ID
> ------------------------------------ ----------------- --- --- --- ---------
> Helvetica                            Type 1            no  no  no      13  0
> 8E6c57STIXGeneral                    CID TrueType      yes no  yes     17  0
> 4E6b8aBitstreamVeraSerif             CID TrueType      yes no  yes     23  0
> 3E6b73LinuxLibertine                 CID TrueType      yes no  yes     35  0
> 5E6be2DejaVuSerif                    CID TrueType      yes no  yes     29  0
> 2E6b2dcmr10                          CID TrueType      yes no  yes     41  0
> 6E6bfeLiberationSerif                CID TrueType      yes no  yes     47  0
> 1E6ac4FreeSerif                      CID TrueType      yes no  yes     53  0
> 7E6c44GentiumBasic                   CID TrueType      yes no  yes     59  0
> 
> 
> pdffonts on OOo output:
> 
> name                                 type              emb sub uni object ID
> ------------------------------------ ----------------- --- --- --- ---------
> BAAAAA+FreeSerif                     TrueType          yes yes yes     29  0
> CAAAAA+cmr10                         TrueType          yes yes yes     49  0
> DAAAAA+BitstreamVeraSans-Roman       TrueType          yes yes yes     54  0
> EAAAAA+LinLibertine                  TrueType          yes yes yes     59  0
> FAAAAA+BitstreamVeraSerif-Roman      TrueType          yes yes yes     44  0
> GAAAAA+DejaVuSerif                   TrueType          yes yes yes     34  0
> HAAAAA+LiberationSerif               TrueType          yes yes yes     19  0
> IAAAAA+GentiumBasic                  TrueType          yes yes yes     24  0
> JAAAAA+STIXGeneral                   TrueType          yes yes yes     39  0
> 
> 
> My complete fop.xconf:
> 
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <fop version="1.0">
>   <strict-configuration>true</strict-configuration>
>   <renderers>
>     <renderer mime="application/pdf">
>       <fonts>
>       <directory>/usr/local/share/fonts/truetype/STIXBeta</directory>
>       <directory>/usr/local/share/fonts/truetype/GentiumBasic</directory>
>       <auto-detect/>
>       </fonts>
>     </renderer>
>   </renderers>
> </fop>
> 
> Fop outputs the following, none of which I think is relevant to the
> above problems:
> 
> Jan 18, 2008 10:14:22 AM org.apache.fop.fonts.truetype.TTFFile readKerning
> WARNING: Unicode index (1) not found for glyph 2870
> Jan 18, 2008 10:14:22 AM org.apache.fop.fonts.truetype.TTFFile readKerning
> WARNING: Unicode index (1) not found for glyph 2870
> Jan 18, 2008 10:14:22 AM org.apache.fop.fonts.truetype.TTFFile 
> determineAscDesc
> WARNING: Ascender and descender together are larger than the em box. This 
> could lead to a wrong baseline placement in Apache FOP.
> 



Jeremias Maerki


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to