Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 104050
Apostrophes are not printed when using font 'Gentium' (wrong PS export)
Last modified: 2013-08-07 14:44:07 UTC
Printing a text with curved apostrophes ( ’ - U+2019, a.k.a. right single quotation mark) using the Gentium font results in blank characters instead of each apostrophe. It appears that the PS file exported by OO.o is invalid, while PDFs are right. The Gentium font includes the right character for U+2019, and other fonts print curved apostrophes right in the same document. Till Kampetter has had a deeper look at the issue: > The PostScript of the attached file is already somehow broken. When sending > it unfiltered to an HP LaserJet 3390, the right quote does not appear on the > printout, if one displays it with Ghostscript or sends it unfiltered to the > HP LaserJet P3005 the right quote appears. If I look into the PostScript file > itself, I see an embedded font, and it seems that not the whole font > > definition is embedded but only the glyphs needed for the file. And when I > look closer to it all glyphs but the right quote are defined, the right quote > is not defined. It seems that some PostScript interpreters (Ghostscript, LJ > P3005) have a fallback for the missing character, others not (LJ 3390).
Original issue: https://bugs.launchpad.net/openoffice/+bug/376953 @tillkamppeter: looking at the end of your comment #10 in the issue mentionned above: "... It seems that some PostScript interpreters (Ghostscript, LJ P3005) have a fallback for the missing character, others not (LJ 3390)" I'm I right if I understand that there is no bug on our (OOo) side?
The full quote was this: " The PostScript of the attached file is already somehow broken. When sending it unfiltered to an HP LaserJet 3390, the right quote does not appear on the printout, if one displays it with Ghostscript or sends it unfiltered to the HP LaserJet P3005 the right quote appears. If I look into the PostScript file itself, I see an embedded font, and it seems that not the whole font definition is embedded but only the glyphs needed for the file. And when I look closer to it all glyphs but the right quote are defined, the right quote is not defined. It seems that some PostScript interpreters (Ghostscript, LJ P3005) have a fallback for the missing character, others not (LJ 3390). " So you are saying its not a bug in OOo to not embed the glyph needed in the postscript file? The fact that some postscript interpreters can work around the fact that OOo didn't embed the glyph doesn't make it not OOo's bug, or am I missing something important?
@ccheney: are you talking to me or to tillkamppeter? If it's to me: I just asked a question to know if did understand the statement of tillkamppeter. @HDU: please help! @nalimilan: please attach the sample odt document and the ps file here here.
In my opinion it is an OOo bug, as there is actually a glyph missing in the OOo PostScript output. And as I have shown, not all PS interpreters have a fallback for such broken PostScript. And if there is a fallback, one cannot be sure that the replacement glyph coming from the printer/interpreter looks different to the one which was supposed to be provided by the document.
@tillkamppeter: Thanx a lot for clarifying! can you please uplood odt and ps files here? Thank you!
Created attachment 64043 [details] OOo-produced test file with incomplete font
Created attachment 64044 [details] PostScript generated from same file but with AbiWord (GNOME)
Unfortunately, the submitter of the Ubuntu bug did not attach his original file which he has created with OpenOffice.org but only the PostScript output of OOo and of Abiword, both done from the same input file. The PostScript files are attached.
Created attachment 64062 [details] view inside the embedded Type42
The screenshot shows that inside the attached test.ps both apostrophes are embedded in the the type42 font. The right apostrophe is at glyph0, which is supposed to be reserved for the notdef glyph though, so I understand why some postscript interpreters could get confused by this. @pl: a problem seems to be pspgraphics: make sure only the notdef glyph gets into glyphpos0
target
This seems to be the same problem as issue 106833 *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 106833 ***
closing