That's just a font metrics file. It could still be that your configuration file is set up so you get a CID font. Can we see the font configuration, too?
On 17.12.2008 17:04:58 egibler wrote: > > I got ahold of the configuration file for the font that is acting up. From > what I can see, it is being defined as an ANSI font, but when the PDF is > produced, it shows as CID. Again, in version .2 it worked great. Is there > anything that can or should be added / edited to the following (or > elsewhere) that would get the font rendered as ANSI? > > I'd sure appreciate any suggestions. > Thanks! > Ed > > ******************************************** > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > <font-metrics type="TRUETYPE"> > <font-name>OCRAExtended</font-name> > > <cap-height>648</cap-height> > <x-height>0</x-height> > <ascender>857</ascender> > <descender>-176</descender> > <bbox> > <left>-4</left> > <bottom>-176</bottom> > <right>875</right> > <top>857</top> > </bbox> > <flags>33</flags> > <stemv>0</stemv> > <italicangle>0</italicangle> > <subtype>TRUETYPE</subtype> > <singlebyte-extras> > <encoding>WinAnsiEncoding</encoding> > <first-char>0</first-char> > <last-char>255</last-char> > <widths> > <char idx="0" wdt="1000"/> > <char idx="1" wdt="1000"/> > > **** snipped out ‘2’ to '254’*** > > <char idx="255" wdt="604"/> > </widths> > </singlebyte-extras> > </font-metrics> > > ************************************************** > > Jeremias Maerki-2 wrote: > > > > On 04.12.2008 23:25:57 Andreas Delmelle wrote: > >> 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. > > > > But not just that. It doesn't really take an "exotic" language for that > > CID fonts to become interesting. > > > >> > 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 (?) > > > > Yes, we do CID fonts for TrueType fonts by default because that's the > > most versatile approach. I was not aware that this can slow down > > Acrobat's PDF concatenation this much. If Adobe had chosen to simply > > embed the font multiple times (as probably other tools would), the whole > > thing would be much faster. But the PDF file would obviously be bigger > > in the end. > > > > The thing with this choice is that we currently cannot switch from > > single byte handling to multi byte handling when necessary. The > > architecture of the font subsystem doesn't currently allow that. So we > > have to make a decision beforehand which approach to take. And currently, > > if you don't use an XML font metrics file, the choice is hard-coded to > > CID fonts. Maybe that needs to be made configurable at least. I've > > recorded an RFE in Bugzilla so this doesn't get forgotten: > > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46348 > > > >> > 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. > > > > Right, that's one work-around: an XML font metrics file generated with > > -ansi. The other option, since you're talking about an OCR font: you > > could switch to the Type 1 variant in which case you're automatically in > > the single byte realm and the problem would not appear. > > > >> If they do not immediately know how, refer them to: > >> http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/0.95/fonts.html > >> > >> > >> HTH! > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> Andreas > >> > > > > > > Jeremias Maerki > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/0.95---Acrobat-Performance-Problems-tp20774481p21055068.html > Sent from the FOP - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
