kennardconsulting wrote:
Dear All,
There seems to have been a change from 0.94 to 0.95BETA. I'm not sure if
this is intentional, but the encoding 'ZapfDingbatsEncoding' (which I
understand to be some kind of FOP-specific workaround) is making it into the
final PDF output:
128 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/BaseFont /ZapfDingbats
/Encoding /ZapfDingbatsEncoding
I believe 0.94 also used ZapfDingbatsEncoding, but final PDFs produced by
0.94 don't include it:
127 0 obj
<< /Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F14
/BaseFont /ZapfDingbats >>
I don't believe this is a bug. This change was introduced to allow
support for Type 1 Font embedding using non WinAnsi encoding. See the
changes log for details of changes to the Font sub system:
http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/changes.html#Changes+to+the+Font+Subsystem
As far as I understand, ZapfDingbatsEncoding is not a 'standard' encoding
like WinAnsiEncoding, and so this causes problems for PDF processing tools.
For example, PDFBox (http://www.pdfbox.org) balks at stripping text from
0.95BETA PDFs because of it, whereas it works fine with 0.94 PDFs.
That seems odd. It could be a problem in PDF Box. Did you try using
another PDF tool such as iText? Perhaps Jeremias will have some
additional thoughts.
Is there any guidance for this issue?
Your help is much appreciated,
Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
