You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org by Petar <op...@yahoo.com> on 2003/12/28 19:11:21 UTC
PDFTranscoder & Batik library in FOP 1.0
Looking through the old posts I noticed that it seems that there is a special
version of Batik library being checked in with FOP. Is there any way to find
out what version of Batik source code does this Batik JAR in FOP 1.0 correspond
to? Is this just a snapshot of Batik at some point (1.5 for example) or does
it contain special FOP-related changes? Will PDFTranscoder work with Batik
1.5?
I am trying to track down some behaviors and I need to take a look at
corresponding Batik source code.
Thanks,
Petar
Re: PDFTranscoder & Batik library in FOP 1.0
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
Current batik.jar is from Oct 11 2003 and is a snapshot from CVS if I
read the commit message right.
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-fop/lib/batik.jar
Whether it works with Batik 1.5 I can't tell. But I hope so. If not, that
API should finally get nailed down.
On 28.12.2003 19:11:21 Petar wrote:
> Looking through the old posts I noticed that it seems that there is a special
> version of Batik library being checked in with FOP. Is there any way to find
> out what version of Batik source code does this Batik JAR in FOP 1.0 correspond
> to? Is this just a snapshot of Batik at some point (1.5 for example) or does
> it contain special FOP-related changes? Will PDFTranscoder work with Batik
> 1.5?
>
> I am trying to track down some behaviors and I need to take a look at
> corresponding Batik source code.
Jeremias Maerki
Re: Non-visible characters in embedded fonts
Posted by Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>.
Petr van Blokland wrote:
> Dear list,
> happy 2004.
> Does anyone know where to search for the problem that characters
> ‚ to Ÿ are displayed as "#" characters. The other characters
> (lower ascii and beyond  ) are displaying fine. Is this an encoding
> problem? I seem to get the same result for all fonts.
What glyphs do you expect to appear? Unicode characters 128 to 159 are
control characters, after all (see code charts at http://www.unicode.org).
BTW: there's no such thing as "lower ASCII". ASCII is a 7-bit encoding.
Regards, Julian
--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-user-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Non-visible characters in embedded fonts
Posted by John Root <jr...@publisys.com>.
On 1/1/04 3:54 PM, "Petr van Blokland" <bu...@petr.com> wrote:
> Does anyone know where to search for the problem that characters
> ‚ to Ÿ are displayed as "#" characters.
# characters appear in the output when there is no glyph for that character
code in the selected font.
John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-user-help@xml.apache.org
Non-visible characters in embedded fonts
Posted by Petr van Blokland <bu...@petr.com>.
Dear list,
happy 2004.
Does anyone know where to search for the problem that characters
‚ to Ÿ are displayed as "#" characters. The other characters
(lower ascii and beyond  ) are displaying fine. Is this an encoding
problem? I seem to get the same result for all fonts.
Kind regards,
Petr van Blokland
buro@petr.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-user-help@xml.apache.org
RE: PDFTranscoder & Batik library in FOP 1.0
Posted by "Andreas L. Delmelle" <a_...@pandora.be>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Petar [mailto:opeka0-dev0@yahoo.com]
>
> Looking through the old posts I noticed that it seems that there
> is a special
> version of Batik library being checked in with FOP. Is there any
> way to find
> out what version of Batik source code does this Batik JAR in FOP
> 1.0 correspond
> to? Is this just a snapshot of Batik at some point (1.5 for
> example) or does
> it contain special FOP-related changes?
It's definitely a snapshot (not FOP-customized, but supplied mainly because
Batik's API changes from time to time, so the SVG rendering would have to be
updated with each of these...) I think it's version 1.4.something...
> Will PDFTranscoder work with Batik 1.5?
>
The PDFTranscoder package that's needed for batik does normally work with
1.5 (--at least, up to now, I haven't encountered any problems using Batik
1.5 with FOP 0.20.5).
> I am trying to track down some behaviors and I need to take a look at
> corresponding Batik source code.
>
Let us know if you need any further info, or if you find any peculiarities
we should be aware of.
Cheers,
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-user-help@xml.apache.org