On Dec 22, 2008, at 12:28 PM, David Thielen wrote:
We have been using Unicode for all of our output. Works great in
that we don’t need to worry about what characters are in a string.
But it means we always have embedded fonts – which is not good.
I disagree with this last statement.
M
To: Post all your questions about iText here
Subject: Re: [iText-questions] Code page or unicode
David Thielen wrote:
> We build our documents from a Word document. So the customer has
already
> selected the fonts in Word - and we must use those fonts. So I don't
> think that approac
David Thielen wrote:
> We build our documents from a Word document. So the customer has already
> selected the fonts in Word - and we must use those fonts. So I don't
> think that approach will work. And if it's Russian & Polish using
> Verdana, don't we then have to get 2 different Verdana fonts,
for
each code page?
Thanks - dave
-Original Message-
From: 1T3XT info [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 12:47 PM
To: Post all your questions about iText here
Subject: Re: [iText-questions] Code page or unicode
David Thielen wrote:
> What's the "best pract
David Thielen wrote:
> What’s the “best practices” in this case? I prefer the concept of
> keeping everything Unicode but we do need to offer PDF files that are
> smaller (ie don’t have embedded fonts).
What about running all the text through FontSelector?
Add a font that isn't embedded first in
Hi;
We have been using Unicode for all of our output. Works great in that we
don't need to worry about what characters are in a string. But it means
we always have embedded fonts - which is not good.
We do not know up front what characters are in the text we get and while
I think it's rare,
