[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


http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692000

--- 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
http://www.tau.ac.il/~stoledo/Pubs/vowels.ps


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