On 04 Dec 2008, at 23:05, egibler wrote:
I think we uncovered the culprit!
The files we received in the 0.2 version used an 'OCRAExtended'
font, which
was TrueType and Encoding: Ansi.
The files we receive now with 0.95 have 'OCRAExtended', which is
TrueType
(CID) and Encoding: Entity-H.
From what I've read, the CID font is basically for foreign languages
with
huge character sets. Is this correct?
Basically, yes.
Is there a reason that the guys who
make the PDF need this CID font in version 0.95. The only
characters used
are numbers (0-9).
I'm not sure. I'll leave the detailed explanation to those who are
more familiar with that part of the code (if they decide to chime in),
but my best guess would be that the on-the-fly metrics generation
(introduced in later versions) somehow defaults to CID font-metrics (?)
I swapped the font out in my samples, and combining 200 one-page pdfs
dropped from 30+ minutes to a few seconds. This would make all the
difference to us, if it is doable from the developers' perspective.
What do you think?
Makes sense that this is such a drain. Using CID fonts means Acrobat
has to merge the glyph tables from 200 documents (and possibly change
references in the documents themselves too, accordingly).
If my above assumption is correct, then the issue could be alleviated
on the producing end. Even if no longer necessary, it is still
possible to manually generate a font-metrics file for the given font
in Ansi encoding, and reference that in the config file.
If they do not immediately know how, refer them to:
http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/0.95/fonts.html
HTH!
Cheers
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
