Issue 40065 - PDF-Export of the attached files doesn't work
Summary: PDF-Export of the attached files doesn't work
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of issue 10218
Alias: None
Product: gsl
Classification: Code
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: OOo 1.1.1
Hardware: PC All
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: hdu@apache.org
QA Contact: issues@gsl
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-01-06 20:18 UTC by timi_openoffice
Modified: 2005-02-07 13:39 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: ENHANCEMENT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---

Attachments
the produced bad pdf file (1.46 KB, application/pdf)
2005-01-06 20:19 UTC, timi_openoffice 		no flags Details
the used sxw file to demonstrate the error (5.14 KB, application/vnd.sun.xml.writer)
2005-01-06 20:20 UTC, timi_openoffice 		no flags Details
used font (26.87 KB, application/font)
2005-01-06 20:21 UTC, timi_openoffice 		no flags Details
used font (1.28 KB, application/font)
2005-01-06 20:22 UTC, timi_openoffice 		no flags Details
used font (26.82 KB, application/font)
2005-01-06 20:22 UTC, timi_openoffice 		no flags Details
used font (1.26 KB, application/font)
2005-01-06 20:23 UTC, timi_openoffice 		no flags Details
used font (25.50 KB, application/font)
2005-01-06 20:23 UTC, timi_openoffice 		no flags Details
used font (1.27 KB, application/font)
2005-01-06 20:23 UTC, timi_openoffice 		no flags Details
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description timi_openoffice 2005-01-06 20:18:49 UTC 
A PDF-Export of the attached fonts doesn't work. It results in a PDF without
embedded fonts and with a font defination not reflekting the names of the
originaly used fonts. sxw and pdf are attached also. Quality "prepress" was used
for PDF-Exporting. The error is reproducable on 1.1.1/Windows and and
1.1.3/Linux and 1.1.1/SuSE-Bild/Linux, so i think he's platform independent.
Comment 1 timi_openoffice 2005-01-06 20:19:40 UTC 
Created attachment 21150 [details]
the produced bad pdf file
Comment 2 timi_openoffice 2005-01-06 20:20:20 UTC 
Created attachment 21151 [details]
the used sxw file to demonstrate the error
Comment 3 timi_openoffice 2005-01-06 20:21:43 UTC 
Created attachment 21152 [details]
used font
Comment 4 timi_openoffice 2005-01-06 20:22:13 UTC 
Created attachment 21153 [details]
used font
Comment 5 timi_openoffice 2005-01-06 20:22:41 UTC 
Created attachment 21154 [details]
used font
Comment 6 timi_openoffice 2005-01-06 20:23:08 UTC 
Created attachment 21155 [details]
used font
Comment 7 timi_openoffice 2005-01-06 20:23:37 UTC 
Created attachment 21156 [details]
used font
Comment 8 timi_openoffice 2005-01-06 20:23:59 UTC 
Created attachment 21157 [details]
used font
Comment 9 stephan_schaefer 2005-01-07 09:21:53 UTC 
->hdu: Please, have a look.
Comment 10 hdu@apache.org 2005-01-07 10:13:13 UTC 
There are three problems/missing features to allow OOo to work with these fonts:
1. On Win32 platforms there is issue 10218 which prevents OOo from getting
access to the font file contents
2. On Unix platforms OOo currently only supports type1 font files with an *.afm
or *.pfa extension
3. The PDF export does not yet support embedding of *.pfb files.

HDU->PL: Are there already have feature tasks for the items 2. and 3. in the
list above?
Comment 11 hdu@apache.org 2005-01-07 10:41:12 UTC 
Oops, of course OOo already handles *.pfb files, but *.pfm files are not yet
supported...

HDU->Timi: for unix platforms you can workaround the missing feature by also
providing *.afm files for each *.pfb file.
Comment 12 philipp.lohmann 2005-01-10 09:20:19 UTC 
pl->hdu: Since we don't support pfm and probably won't either that leaves open
the using of type manager on Windows as you planned.
Comment 13 hdu@apache.org 2005-01-10 10:44:57 UTC 
Darn, why do I get this issue back? This would be the perfect issue to track
whether or not and for which target to support *.pfm files. For the ATM
integration I already have issue 10218...

Since the other two aspects of the problem have been rejected by the responsible
developer and I already have an issue for the ATM integration the most
appropriate status is duplicate...

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 10218 ***
Comment 14 hdu@apache.org 2005-02-07 13:39:11 UTC 
Closing duplicate.