Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 3145
File imported from Word produces ghostscript-incompatible .ps file when printed
Last modified: 2003-09-08 16:56:16 UTC
Hi, I imported a Word document and tried to print it from OpenOffice 641C, and it produced a ghostscript error. Deleting some sections allowed it to print. Through the process of elimination, I've narrowed the non-printing part down to a single dot :) I'm attaching the resultant .sxw file and the .ps file produced by print-to-file in OpenOffice.
Created attachment 1066 [details] OpenOffice document containing the offending dot
Created attachment 1067 [details] Non-printing postscript file produced from the above .sxw
Reassigned to Michael.
*** Issue 3303 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
It looks, that some printer drivers have a problem when a document contains characters formatted with the "Symbol" Font. I noticed this problem also on Windows, when printing with different applications (Writer, MS Word). Especially HP-Printers seem to have problems with the symbol font on PS-drivers (with Lexmark-printers e.g. it printed fine). So I think this is not an OpenOffice related issue.
Exactly the same file prints fine (to the a ghostscript-compatible ps file or a postscript printer) from MS Word, and was produced in a trivial manner using normal MS Word commands. Thus the problem is OpenOffice-specific. If files like this don't work in OpenOffice, it could mean serious MS Office interoperability problems - which would be a shame, since we're already so close. I suggest working around this in any way necessary, even if it involves changing all bullets/symbols into 8-balls like old versions of StarOffice used to do. At least then the files would print, even if they looked funny. Thanks, Avery
Not exactly. I printed from MS Word to file with a Laserjet 5MP PS driver, and Ghostscript was not able do process this file. So I am not sure, that this is really an OpenOffice issue.
Added PL to cc.
MRU->PL: Do you have an idea about this issue?
fixed in 641d *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 3002 ***
So the problem is fixed with 641d and is also double to another one, I'll close it.