Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.postscript > #230
| 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> |
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 | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
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