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


Groups > comp.lang.postscript > #230

Re: Bad glyph causes Adobe distill failure, but works in Preview

From ken <ken@spamcop.net>
Newsgroups comp.lang.postscript
Subject Re: Bad glyph causes Adobe distill failure, but works in Preview
Date 2011-06-06 07:55 +0100
Message-ID <MPG.28568a2e3e9e72fb989842@usenet.plus.net> (permalink)
References <989b39ed-2a02-4b74-b4ce-e07ec9d70920@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> <MPG.2852ffede6b4aaed989840@usenet.plus.net> <1ecaa8c6-b428-4e2b-aad9-b61bf5fd7ac6@j25g2000vbr.googlegroups.com> <MPG.28541143848b9d7c989841@usenet.plus.net> <ad4e9d97-66b9-4613-9891-43345de2440c@h7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw


In article <ad4e9d97-66b9-4613-9891-
43345de2440c@h7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, jdawiseman@gmail.com says...

> -- glyphshow. If every glyph is separately re-encoded into an ASCII-
97-
> x61 lower-case 'a', would that really help searching and copy-pasting?
> That seems very odd. 

Not sure what you mean. I said that using glypshow instead of an 
Encoding would harm copy/paste/search, that doesn't entail putting all 
the glyphs in the same Encoding position.

 
> -- Fonts. Ideally I would like the PostScript to know whether the
> glyph exists, and whether its drawing code is of non-zero length, and
> whether any other mandatory pieces exist and have some chance of being
> well-formed. Please, if that, or parts of that, are easy and obvious
> to you, and you have the inspiration (or pre-existing code), consider
> adding code to the following.

That's a major project, and not one I would care to tackle in 
PostScript. Not least because at least some commercial fonts mark 
CharStrings dictionary as 'no access' in order to prevent people 
stealing the glyph outlines. Obviously the interpreter can still access 
the dat ain order to draw the glyph, but the PostScript language can't.

Then there's the fact that there are a lot of different types of fonts, 
with different minimum requirements.

The PostScript interpreter does all this checking so that you don't have 
to, I'd leave the job there personally.


			Ken

Back to comp.lang.postscript | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar


Thread

Bad glyph causes Adobe distill failure, but works in Preview jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2011-06-03 01:46 -0700
  Re: Bad glyph causes Adobe distill failure, but works in Preview jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2011-06-03 01:46 -0700
  Re: Bad glyph causes Adobe distill failure, but works in Preview ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-03 15:28 +0100
    Re: Bad glyph causes Adobe distill failure, but works in Preview jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2011-06-03 11:45 -0700
      Re: Bad glyph causes Adobe distill failure, but works in Preview ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-04 10:54 +0100
        Re: Bad glyph causes Adobe distill failure, but works in Preview jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2011-06-05 04:15 -0700
          Re: Bad glyph causes Adobe distill failure, but works in Preview ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-06 07:55 +0100
            Re: Bad glyph causes Adobe distill failure, but works in Preview jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2011-06-06 14:49 -0700
              Re: Bad glyph causes Adobe distill failure, but works in Preview ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-07 07:50 +0100
                Re: Bad glyph causes Adobe distill failure, but works in Preview jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 02:00 -0700
                Re: Bad glyph causes Adobe distill failure, but works in Preview ken <ken@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-07 10:37 +0100
                Re: Bad glyph causes Adobe distill failure, but works in Preview jdaw1 <jdawiseman@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 16:56 -0700

csiph-web