[scribus-dev] GSoC Updates

[Pierre Marchand]

Vous (Andreas Vox) avez écrit :
> > Vous (Thach Tran) avez écrit :
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have solved the TrueType embedding problem in PDF/X-4.
> >
> > What I did is
> >
> > > I embedded it as a Type0 font (CID font).
> >
> > I finally found time to read your code and think a bit more
> > about it? I must say I’m not exactly excited by tricking the
> > font type.
>
> Any specific reason?

At that point not, just the feeling that we could have use what’s offered by 
the ref.


> The problem is that those are 8 bit encodings, limited to Latin
> characters. 

Yes. OTOH, there are some documents written in latin scripts.

> If we want to access all glyphs in a font, we need
> to change its encoding. For TT fonts, that means either using a
> nonsymbolic font with Differences (not recommended) or using a
> CID encoding.
>
> In my view, using the Differences method or trying to cherry-pick
> the correct cmap in the font (which only gives us (1,0) or (3,1)
> for nonsymbolic fonts or (3,0)/(1,0) for symbolic fonts) is not
> reliable enough and would need font anaylsis and complex code.

hm, in my view it was rather a couple of extra checks by asking infos to 
Freetype.

> The CID way is a well-defined and should work for any TT font.
> Compared with Type1 fonts we don't even need the current multiple
> 224 chars encodings Scribus produces now. Instead we can use a single
> Cmap for the font. Best of all, the application that reads the
> PDF has no choice how to do the mapping - no surprises possible.
>
> For Type1 fonts, the CID way is not so easy, since Type1 CID fonts
> use the CFF format. Here the current approach with multiple 224 chars
> encodings seems best. For Type3 fonts there isnt any choise anyhow.
>
> > I haven’t considered the possibility to alter the string
> > itself to fit in a particular encoding. You can explore it
> > but really it would be nice to achieve clean embedding
> > without hack elsewhere :)
>
> We already do that with our 224 chars encodings.

Which is suboptimal, let me think once to offer the option to attach ToUnicode 
then. Oh, maybe I’ll do that with TJ op.

> > What do you think?
>
> I think Thach did a great job! :-)

Hehe, my point was not to say CID-keyed fonts were to avoid. I would rather 
say that there is a description of kind of a canonical way for embedding TTFs 
which would be considered first. Now, if it’s a real shortcut to go CID over 
regular embedding without no issues, I’ll be the first to applause! And in 
fact Thach effectively told he already examined regular embedding with 
standard encodings before writing the CID-key code.

Was my short line before a day of traveling.

-- 
Pierre Marchand
http://www.oep-h.com