Re: Unicode interpretation
Joerg Flotho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: only if you use somewhat esoteric characters (for middle-european cultures) like special mathematical symbols. The copyright-symbol (x00A9) is interpreted correctly, I think because it's lower than 256. Second example: a left-arrow (x2190). In filename.fo it's displayed correctly. In the pdf it appears as an angle. It appears as NOT SIGN (x00ac). X00ac is the code point of the left arrow in the symbol font. I'm not sure why FOP does not switch to the correct font. Try fo:inline font-family=Symbol#x2190;/fo:inline as a workaround. The used font is Arial. Using Arial Unicode MS makes no difference.(Maybe the syntax wasn't correctly) Is white space allowed? White space is allowed. However: FOP must know about the fonts too. The standard distribution knows only about Helvetica, Courier, Times Symbol and Dingbats. See font.html from the distribution. If you want to use Arial Unicode, you have to install it in FOP. HTH J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unicode Interpretation
Correctly displayed signs are those whose decimal-value is lower than 256. Whatever my encoding type is (UTF-8 or UTF-16 or none)in the xml.file and xsl.file, the IE 5.0 shows UTF-8 viewing the filename.fo. Do I have to use Arial in any case in the xsl.stylesheet? Jörg Flotho What is the encoding type for your xml document? Michael Akerman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]Information Services (501) 575-5870 University of Arkansas http://www.uark.edu/~mike - On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, [iso-8859-1] Jörg Flotho wrote: We have different versions of interpretations regarding unicode: In the xml-file we use unicode (hexadecimal or decimal seems to make no difference). After passing XALAN some signs were interpreted wrong.(viewing in IE 5.0 as filename.fo) And after passing the FO-process in Tomcat (FOP 20.1) the output of some more signs was wrong. In fact signs having been right before now were wrong too.(viewing in acrobat 5.) We would realy appreciate if someone could help us handling these problems! Thanks Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unicode interpretation
Joerg Flotho [EMAIL PROTECTED] We have different versions of interpretations regarding unicode: [...] (hexadecimal or decimal seems to make no difference). That's by design :-) After passing XALAN some signs were interpreted wrong.(viewing in IE 5.0 as filename.fo) [...] I suppose some characters are displayed as unexpected glyphs on the screen. This may have rather different causes: - There is no appropriate font on the system for supplying information how those characters are rendered. - The software has difficulties with the encoding of the characters in a file and therefore interprets some characters as being other characters than originally meant. - There are typos in the character references in the XML source file. Your description doesn't make clear which of these apply, maybe even all toghether. 1. Make sure the character references (#160; and the like) in the source file are correct. 2. Check whether the fonts on all relevant machines can map the characters you use. In case of PDF, this may not only involve the machine where the PDF is generated but also the machines on which the PDF is viewed. FOP must know abou the fonts too. This should be relevant only if you use somewhat esoteric characters (for middle-european cultures) like special mathematical symbols. 3. Be sure that the encoding in the XML declaration at the beginning of your XML source file matches the actual encoding. This shouldn't be relevant if all characters which aren't US-ASCII are typed as character references (like #254;). If in doubt, check whether there are any non-ASCII characters in the file, and replace all you find by their corresponding character reference. German umlauts, non-breaking spaces and typographic quotes are not ASCII. If this doesn't help, produce a minimal XML file with a character reference whose rendering does not meet your expectations, like ?xml version=1.0? char#1234;/char and describe how you expect the character to be rendered and what you get, and perhaps what OS you run and what font you expect to be used for rendering the character (which should of course be installed). HTH J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unicode interpretation
Thank you! I checked your hints and answer after the respective positions. -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: Joerg Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Januar 2002 12:42 An: FOP List Betreff: Re: Unicode interpretation 3. Joerg Flotho [EMAIL PROTECTED] We have different versions of interpretations regarding unicode: [...] (hexadecimal or decimal seems to make no difference). That's by design :-) After passing XALAN some signs were interpreted wrong.(viewing in IE 5.0 as filename.fo) [...] I suppose some characters are displayed as unexpected glyphs on the screen. This may have rather different causes: - There is no appropriate font on the system for supplying information how those characters are rendered. - The software has difficulties with the encoding of the characters in a file and therefore interprets some characters as being other characters than originally meant. - There are typos in the character references in the XML source file. Your description doesn't make clear which of these apply, maybe even all toghether. 1. Make sure the character references (#160; and the like) in the source file are correct. Lower than 256 they are correct. 2. Check whether the fonts on all relevant machines can map the characters you use. in principle the used characters are maped correctly. Checked in word. In case of PDF, this may not only involve the machine where the PDF is generated but also the machines on which the PDF is viewed. is the same in this case. FOP must know about the fonts too. This should be relevant only if you use somewhat esoteric characters (for middle-european cultures) like special mathematical symbols. 3. Be sure that the encoding in the XML declaration at the beginning of your XML source file matches the actual encoding. This shouldn't be relevant if all characters which aren't US-ASCII are typed as character references (like #254;). If in doubt, check whether there are any non-ASCII characters in the file, and replace all you find by their corresponding character reference. German umlauts, non-breaking spaces and typographic quotes are not ASCII. We have only character references. The encoding at the beginning of the xml.file was not beeing matched, but the engine writes UTF-8 by itself. If this doesn't help, produce a minimal XML file with a character reference whose rendering does not meet your expectations, like ?xml version=1.0? char#1234;/char and describe how you expect the character to be rendered and what you get, and perhaps what OS you run and what font you expect to be used for rendering the character (which should of course be installed). The copyright-symbol (x00A9) is interpreted correctly, I think because it's lower than 256. Second example: a left-arrow (x2190). In filename.fo it's displayed correctly. In the pdf it appears as an angle. The used font is Arial. Using Arial Unicode MS makes no difference.(Maybe the syntax wasn't correctly) Is white space allowed? Is it a question of embedding fonts too? HTH J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Unicode interpretation
What is the encoding type for your xml document? Michael Akerman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]Information Services (501) 575-5870 University of Arkansas http://www.uark.edu/~mike - On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, [iso-8859-1] Jörg Flotho wrote: We have different versions of interpretations regarding unicode: In the xml-file we use unicode (hexadecimal or decimal seems to make no difference). After passing XALAN some signs were interpreted wrong.(viewing in IE 5.0 as filename.fo) And after passing the FO-process in Tomcat (FOP 20.1) the output of some more signs was wrong. In fact signs having been right before now were wrong too.(viewing in acrobat 5.) We would realy appreciate if someone could help us handling these problems! Thanks Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
