[gs-bugs] [Bug 692000] pdfwrite: incorrect treatment of substitution-based Type 3 Fonts

bugzilla-daemon at ghostscript.com bugzilla-daemon at ghostscript.com
Mon Feb 28 15:13:10 UTC 2011


--- Comment #4 from Zvi Gilboa <zgilboa at indiana.edu> 2011-02-28 15:13:08 UTC ---
Thank you, Ken, for looking at this and making the problem clearer!  Here are
just a couple of minor follow-up comments:

> 2) (Acrobat Distiller) left the font untouched, but individually adjusted 
> the position of each glyph in the output PDF file.

I have checked the pdf file, and this is indeed the case.

> ... since the output is visually correct (at least I assume it is)...

Yes, the output pdf file is visually correct (albeit unsearchable)

> if the type 3 font does nothing but reposition glyphs from
> the type 1 font, then the type 1 font is incorrect

While the task of the type 3 font is indeed to reposition (or, better,
relative-position) the diacritic marks, what makes such repositioning necessary
is not a problem with the type 1 font, but rather inherent aspects of
letter-vowel combinations.  These aspects, as well as the type 3 technique used
to overcome the challenges that they present, are described in Sivan Toledo's
short article on the topic, which can be found at

As of now, the only alternative on the font level would be to use an OpenType
font, which would accordingly require to switch to a substantially different
LaTeX framework.

Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ghostscript.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

More information about the gs-bugs mailing list