Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.postscript > #3630
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.postscript |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-02-05 03:44 -0800 |
| References | <f598435b-83be-4769-ba82-60fc3fdbcca8n@googlegroups.com> <MPG.3a846755fabea3969898c4@usenet.plus.net> <d9180159-1e0d-4e15-b78e-e3169759998en@googlegroups.com> <MPG.3a84db83cf4c59219898c5@usenet.plus.net> |
| Message-ID | <c32f9ea5-e402-4ff5-b13d-fe18c0aa502en@googlegroups.com> (permalink) |
| Subject | Re: Font embedding in Existing PDF's |
| From | Rohan Suku <daffodils345@gmail.com> |
On Wednesday, 3 February 2021 at 17:11:42 UTC+1, ken wrote: > In article <d9180159-1e0d-4e15...@googlegroups.com>, > daffod...@gmail.com says... > > The text and image contents of the files remain the same. The only > operation perfomed is to embed the fonts completely. > I'm afraid that's what you *want* to happen, but it isn't what the > pdfwrite device does. It creates a totally new PDF file, it does not > simply embed fonts into the existing PDF file. At the PDF-syntax level > the input and output files will be quite different. > > As such there is a great deal going on behind the scenes and fonts are a > a particular problem. It is likely that the reason for the change is > that the simpler method used by the old version of Ghostscript was > insufficient and led to incorrect PDF files being created from some > kinds of input files. > > Obviously we would fix that, we prefer that the result be correct to > being small. > > My concern here ist how can I instruct ghostscript not to use the > bigger Fonts or use the Resources from version 9.07? > As I said, I doubt that you can. The likelihood is that the fonts are > being embedded differently to avoid a problem. You are (currently) > fortunate that your usage does not expose the underlying problem in the > output from the old version of Ghostscript. > > However it is quite possible that at some point in the future you will > encounter an input file which does not process correctly using the old > scheme, in which case your output file would be incorrect. > > That is, of course, a guess. As I have said, I cannot even begin to > guess what changes over the last 7 years would have had this effect, > there have been literally thousands of commits. > > You could, of course, carry on using the old version of Ghostscript. > > But if you open a bug report, attach an example file and give me a > command line I will look at the problem. Note that if the example > requires the use of non-standard fonts you will have to supply those as > well, and the fontmap.GS file which maps them so that Ghostscript can > use them. > > Basically I need to be able to reproduce your problem on my system > before I can investigate it. > > > Ken I have opened a bug ticket as you mentioned. The sample files are attached. The bug id is 703481
Back to comp.lang.postscript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Font embedding in Existing PDF's Rohan Suku <daffodils345@gmail.com> - 2021-02-02 02:55 -0800
Re: Font embedding in Existing PDF's "Jeffrey H. Coffield" <jeffrey@digitalsynergyinc.com> - 2021-02-02 14:34 -0800
Re: Font embedding in Existing PDF's ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2021-02-03 07:55 +0000
Re: Font embedding in Existing PDF's Rohan Suku <daffodils345@gmail.com> - 2021-02-03 06:34 -0800
Re: Font embedding in Existing PDF's ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2021-02-03 16:11 +0000
Re: Font embedding in Existing PDF's Rohan Suku <daffodils345@gmail.com> - 2021-02-05 03:44 -0800
Re: Font embedding in Existing PDF's ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2021-02-05 11:47 +0000
csiph-web