Re: [NTG-pdftex] [tex-live] pdfTeX and ToUnicode CMaps
Hello, I think a better place for this issue is the (ntg-)pdftex mailing list, therefore I have CCed the ntg-pdftex mailing list. On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 09:25:19AM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
What exactly is the status of automatic ToUnicode CMap generation within pdfTeX? There is a very nebulous entry in the NEWS file (BTW, the versions in TeXLive's Build and Master tree differ), but the manual is completely silent about it...
Thanh knows all about it. :-) Did you read patch 580 (http://preview.tinyurl.com/38fjr9)?
I now did. Thanks to the pointer. How comes that this feature is neither mentioned in the NEWS file nor in the documentation?
It was presented by Han at EuroBachoTeX 2007: `Font-specific issues in pdfTeX' (I don't know whether slides exist on-line, via google I only found a non-existing pdf file, but at least google's html view was available.) Section "5. Support for ToUnicode map".
I consider this as *very bad*. Lack of documentation is inexcusable.
I think there are unsolved issues. Now there are two methods
for adding CMaps:
(a) \pdffontattr, package cmap
(b) \pdfgentounicode, glyphtounicode.tex
Both methods have its limitations, e.g. (b) only works for Type 1 fonts.
Thus you could need both methods to cover all fonts, but the methods
doesn't know each other, thus fonts can end up with two CMap tables.
Yours sincerely
Heiko
How comes that this feature is neither mentioned in the NEWS file nor in the documentation?
It was presented by Han at EuroBachoTeX 2007: `Font-specific issues in pdfTeX'
(I don't know whether slides exist on-line, via google I only found a non-existing pdf file, but at least google's html view was available.)
Hmm. This isn't a replacement for documentation. IMHO, it *must* be mentioned in the NEWS file (perhaps in the `experimental' section'.
I think there are unsolved issues. Now there are two methods for adding CMaps: (a) \pdffontattr, package cmap
I use this in my CJK package too.
(b) \pdfgentounicode, glyphtounicode.tex
Both methods have its limitations, e.g. (b) only works for Type 1 fonts. Thus you could need both methods to cover all fonts, but the methods doesn't know each other, thus fonts can end up with two CMap tables.
Indeed, those features should be merged. Werner
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 10:08:53AM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
How comes that this feature is neither mentioned in the NEWS file nor in the documentation?
It was presented by Han at EuroBachoTeX 2007: `Font-specific issues in pdfTeX'
(I don't know whether slides exist on-line, via google I only found a non-existing pdf file, but at least google's html view was available.)
Hmm. This isn't a replacement for documentation. IMHO, it *must* be mentioned in the NEWS file (perhaps in the `experimental' section'.
Apart from not having time, there are many reasons for missing documentation. Perhaps the feature isn't finished and too `experimental'. Or there are plans to redesign the interfaces. Documentation raises compatibility issues. On the other hand the author will have less feedback without documentation. But either way, this decision is up to the author who implements the feature, not the user who wants to use it. But the user may help, if the author welcomes it, e.g. writing documentation, testing, or providing ideas, e.g. how to achieve:
Indeed, those features should be merged.
Yours sincerely
Heiko
Hmm. This isn't a replacement for documentation. IMHO, it *must* be mentioned in the NEWS file (perhaps in the `experimental' section'.
Apart from not having time,
Well, this is a lame excuse: It would have been a matter of 10 seconds, namely to copy Thanh's announcement of the patch verbatim to the NEWS file.
there are many reasons for missing documentation. Perhaps the feature isn't finished and too `experimental'.
Hmm.
Or there are plans to redesign the interfaces. Documentation raises compatibility issues. On the other hand the author will have less feedback without documentation.
Indeed. How shall people try it without knowing this feature at all.
But either way, this decision is up to the author who implements the feature, not the user who wants to use it.
If I interpret the patch correctly, it wasn't Thanh who has applied it -- Thanh has done his job correctly providing the necessary details of how to use his new extension, but the applier missed to update the NEWS file. Werner
participants (2)
-
Heiko Oberdiek -
Werner LEMBERG