Type 1 encoding difference between FOP 0.94 and FOP 0.95

[fopaddict]

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?

[Jeremias Maerki-2]

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@...
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@...

[fopaddict]

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: [e-mail]
For additional commands, e-mail: [e-mail]

[Jeremias Maerki-2]

Hmm, dropping the metrics-url is exactly how it should work. FOP 0.95's
font config docs are here:
http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/0.95/fonts.html#register

On 05.11.2009 09:08:14 fopaddict wrote:

>
> 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@...
> > For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@...
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@...

Jeremias Maerki


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

[fopaddict]

Jeremias,
when rereading the documentation (I already knew) I discovered that the embed-url attribute only points to the .PFB part of the font. At installation time of my fonts a few years ago I used the default directory settings of Adobe Type Manager which leads to all .PFM files held in a subdirectory "PFM" of the font base path. Obviously FOP does not find this directory, because the error message in the exception thrown says:
"Neither an AFM nor a PFM file was found for ..."
After copying the respective PFM file from the subdirectory to the font base path everything works fine, even the special characters are printed correctly - problem solved!

A small hint in the documentation would be appreciated, though, suggestion:
"If no metrics-url is specified for a type 1 font, FOP expects the PFM file for the font at the same path where the PFB file specified in embed-url is located."
Richard

Jeremias Maerki-2 wrote:

Hmm, dropping the metrics-url is exactly how it should work. FOP 0.95's
font config docs are here:
http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/0.95/fonts.html#register

On 05.11.2009 09:08:14 fopaddict wrote:
>
> 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: [e-mail]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [e-mail]
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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: [e-mail]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [e-mail]




Jeremias Maerki


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [e-mail]
For additional commands, e-mail: [e-mail]