https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52477
--- Comment #8 from Pascal Sancho 2012-01-18 12:11:52
UTC ---
Since font files are versionned, how this will be handled when 2 subsets use
the same glyphes of the same font, but in different version?
subset reduction should take care of th
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52477
--- Comment #7 from quamis 2012-01-18 11:27:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> That wouldn't necessarily fix the issue here. Fully embedding a font means
> that
> the pseudo-unique prefix isn't used, however this isn't necessarily a go
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52477
--- Comment #6 from Mehdi Houshmand 2012-01-18 10:51:13 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> An alternative approach that will also make it easier for applications to
> extract or de-duplicate font resources when merging multiple PDFs is to
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52477
Chris Bowditch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P5
Status|RESOLVED
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52477
--- Comment #4 from quamis 2012-01-18 08:16:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> 2) We use the deterministic trait of the prefixes in our testing framework.
> The
> value of having a comprehensive test suite is far greater than making the
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52477
--- Comment #3 from Mehdi Houshmand 2012-01-18 07:57:11 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #2)
There are 2 points to address there:
1) We can't arbitrarily make changes to FOP in order for it to "better" (not
even fully!!) support the client s
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52477
--- Comment #2 from quamis 2012-01-18 07:44:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Hi,
>
> This isn't a bug, the PDF specification doesn't mandate that the font prefixes
> are unique outside scope of the document. The only mandate is:
>
>
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52477
Mehdi Houshmand changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
