xmlgraphics-fop-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From fopaddict <rich...@uttner.de>
Subject Re: Type 1 encoding difference between FOP 0.94 and FOP 0.95
Date Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:08:14 GMT

Jeremias,
thanks for your reply. I was just trying to drop the XML font metrics
definition, but do not know how to do this - just dropping the metrics-url
attribute in the font element does not work and I cannot imagine how to tell
FOP about my font without a font element in the xconf. Searching for some
documentation about this was to no avail, everything I find is adressing the
metrics-url. Do you know what to do or where I can find up to date
documentation about this?
Regards,
Richard

Jeremias Maerki-2 wrote:
> 
> The changes between 0.94 and 0.95 can be reviewed here:
> http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/changes.html#Changes+to+the+Font+Subsystem-N1043E
> 
> 0.95 added some functionality to handle additional characters available
> in Type 1 fonts. I'm not aware of any serious bugs there. At least
> things like umlauts should work. Are you still working with XML font
> metrics files (generated by PFMReader)? If yes, try without.
> 
> There was some work after the 0.95 release to further improve Type 1
> fonts. FOP Trunk can correctly handle all glyphs from a Type 1 font even
> if the font contains more than 255 glyphs.
> http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/changes.html#Changes+to+the+Font+Subsystem
> So you may want to try the current FOP Trunk to see if this resolved
> your problems if dropping the XML font metrics file doesn't help.
> 
> On 02.11.2009 20:24:30 fopaddict wrote:
>> 
>> I have a lot of type 1 fonts that I want to use with FOP, thus I created
>> the
>> according font XML data with PFMReader. Everything works fine under FOP
>> 0.94, even the non-standard characters like umlauts are coming up
>> correctly
>> in the PDF. (My XML data are all encoded as UTF-8.)
>> 
>> When trying to generate the same PDF with FOP 0.95 instead, all special
>> characters appear corrupted. For me it looks like that UTF-8 encoding is
>> no
>> more supported under 0.95 at least for type-1 fonts.
>> 
>> Does anybody know what has changed between 0.94 and 0.95 concerning font
>> encodings? Any idea what I can change in my definitions or elsewhere such
>> that umlauts can be printed under 0.95 using type 1 fonts?
>> -- 
>> View this message in context:
>> http://old.nabble.com/Type-1-encoding-difference-between-FOP-0.94-and-FOP-0.95-tp26157790p26157790.html
>> Sent from the FOP - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremias Maerki
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Type-1-encoding-difference-between-FOP-0.94-and-FOP-0.95-tp26157790p26208616.html
Sent from the FOP - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org


Mime
View raw message