Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.postscript > #3630

Re: Font embedding in Existing PDF's

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>

Show all headers | View raw


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 | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar


Thread

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