On 03.11.2009 21:39:35 Arjun Priyananth wrote: > Hi Jeremias, > > Thank you very much for your kind and marvelous support on this. I > really appreciate for your quick response. > > As per your suggestion, > > What you can try is to envelope certain characters in fo:inline or > fo:character tags using XSLT. But that's obviously just a work-around > for the FOP limitation *if you have such a wide range of characters > coming in**. Instead you can try to use a different font that has a wider > range of glyphs like Arial Unicode MS or DejaVu Sans.* That would make > such stunts unnecessary. > > I will get different source of XML from different users. It may have any > number of special characters. But I assume that those characters will be > there in "symbols" font (maths & geek chars). Therefore I need to > preprocess that xml to identify the special characters and map the unicode. > Is that the one I should do in XML?.
I'd enhance the stylesheet you use to transform the XML into XSL-FO. That would be the right place to handle such things. I don't think it makes sense to pre-process the XML. > For your other suggestion : > If possible could you please tell me how to envelope fo:inline only for > certain characters in XSLT. Take a look at the following page for inspiration: http://www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl/sect2/N7240.html (particularly example 8 and 9) Not exactly what you will need to do but close enough. > Also herewith I have attached the PDF for the glyphs fo you have sent to me. > Could you please tell me whether I am missing any fonts. I assume you simply haven't done any font configuration, yet. So if you're just using the default font, consider switching to a font like Arial Unicode MS or DejaVu Sans. The default fonts simply don't have a big range of glyphs available. You may be able to avoid the special processing altogether. For configuring fonts with FOP, please see: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/0.95/fonts.html Once you configured additional fonts, try them with my glyphs.fo file to see the difference. HTH > Thanks & regards, > Arjun > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Jeremias Maerki > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Hi Arjun, > > > > I'm not sure I understand everything that you're saying. I'll try to > > explain this from my point of view. > > > > Let's first look at the glyphs: > > > > The tilde: in Unicode 0x007E, TILDE > > This character is part of the US-ASCII 7-bit encoding, so most fonts > > have that. However, the Symbol font doesn't have the 0x007E glyph. > > Instead, it has the glyph for Unicode 0x223C, TILDE OPERATOR. So these > > are really two different glyph although looking similar, but with a > > different function. Arial Unicode MS has actually both variants, but > > they look different. > > > > The arrow: in Unicode 0x2192, RIGHTWARDS ARROW > > The latin base 14 fonts (Helvetica, Times and Courier) don't have that > > glyph. Symbol does have it. Arial, too. > > > > The alpha: in Unicode 0x03B1, GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA > > You'll notice that this glyph is available in Symbol and most TrueType > > fonts, but not the base 14 Helvetica, for example. > > > > Please see the attached FO file which plays through all discussed glyphs. > > Each once using the direct character and once using a character > > reference (in the form �). Both forms are equivalent. What's > > easier to choose depends on the way your content is created. > > > > So, how to get these character into the FO? That depends largely on your > > application. You have to control either what characters you generate or > > which fonts you choose. Unfortunately, FOP doesn't support > > glyph-by-glyph selection of fonts, so just specifying a font list on the > > font-family property doesn't always help because FOP currently only > > splits at word boundaries (I think). > > > > What you can try is to envelope certain characters in fo:inline or > > fo:character tags using XSLT. But that's obviously just a work-around > > for the FOP limitation if you have such a wide range of characters > > coming in. Instead you can try to use a different font that has a wider > > range of glyphs like Arial Unicode MS or DejaVu Sans. That would make > > such stunts unnecessary. > > > > I hope that helps. > > > > On 03.11.2009 19:09:11 Arjun Priyananth wrote: > > > Hi Jeremias, > > > > > > In my xml arrow and tilde is there as text not as code. > > > in fop file it shows as xml and i am not using any specific fonts. > > > those symbols are there in "Symbol" fonts. Then why its not shown in PDF? > > > > > > Since you have suggested inline tags. How do i get that in fo file. > > > It doesn't put inline tag for arrow, tilde and for some charcters like > > "รถ" > > > (instead of two dots put a hypen on the top). > > > This is the steps I followed > > > - I took one xml which has alpha char, tilde char & arrow char. > > > - transfored to FO. in the fo there is no inline tag for tilde and > > > arrow. alpha has that. > > > how can i get that inline for those two > > > > > > > > > Thanks & regards, > > > Arjun > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:15 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48108 > > > > > > > > Jeremias Maerki <[email protected]> changed: > > > > > > > > What |Removed |Added > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Status|NEW |RESOLVED > > > > Resolution| |INVALID > > > > > > > > --- Comment #1 from Jeremias Maerki <[email protected]> 2009-11-02 > > > > 23:45:46 UTC --- > > > > Please see the following FAQ entry: > > > > http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/faq.html#pdf-characters > > > > > > > > If the font you're using doesn't have the necessary glyphs, FOP can't > > make > > > > them > > > > appear. You will need to select a font that has the glyphs you need. > > That > > > > '~' > > > > is not available is a little peculiar. That glyph is available in > > almost > > > > all > > > > latin fonts. However the arrow glyph is not. Maybe if you mentioned > > what > > > > fonts > > > > you're trying to use, it would be easier to tell exactly what's going > > on. > > > > > > > > Please follow up on [email protected]. I'm fairly sure > > that > > > > this > > > > is no bug. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Configure bugmail: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email > > > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > > > > You reported the bug. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > - Arjun Priyananth > > > > > > > > > > Jeremias Maerki > > > > > > -- > - Arjun Priyananth Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
