[NTG-pdftex] xpdf/poppler usage: Movements on the poppler side, and a request for help

Martin Schröder martin at oneiros.de
Fri Oct 27 21:44:54 CEST 2006


2006/10/27, Frank Küster <frank at debian.org>:
> recently more projects that do not need any of the fancy graphical
> interfaces are considering using poppler, e.g. CUPS.  However, the
> poppler developers plan to make unavailable the old, undocumented, never
> planned and unmaintainable API of "plain libpoppler".

Whatever that is.

> These two wishes together give us a fair chance that someone will
> actually do the work and develop a clean API for a plain C-only poppler,
> without any graphics payload.  Therefore it would be nice if someone
> among the pdfTeX developers would take part in the discussion, in
> particular help answer the question in
>
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/poppler/2006-October/002260.html
>
> ,----
> | What functionality would the tetex people need exported from such an
> | API?
> `----

I just did.

> At a short glance over pdftoepdf.cc and pdftosrc.cc, I only found these
> symbols:
>
> Ref
> GfxFont
> GBool
> PDFDoc
> GString
> LinkDest
> Stream
>
> But in fact there may be more - and you may also have some wishes about
> PDF parsing and manipulation that need to be added yet.

If we would start pdfTeX now, we would probably use much more (Taco,
are you listening? :-). E.g. pdfTeX has a complete machinery for
parsing font files, while poppler probably also has code for that. And
the code for writing objects is also duplicated and quite low-level in
pdfTeX.
So there is definitely duplicate functionality.

A very short term goal (i.e. 1.40) would be to have code in
utils.c:initversionstring to handle the case where poppler is used
instead of xpdf. And to have the patches you already distribute for
using poppler in pdfTeX.

Best
   Martin


More information about the ntg-pdftex mailing list