We use TXT2PDF in a service machine every day. I think the use of TrueType fonts is great. I don't know if we would ever play with the translation tables. What ever it uses now seems to work just fine for us.
/Tom Kern /U.S. Dept of Energy /301-903-2211 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I haven't done much with TXT2PDF for like 3 years(!), but I finally got the > itch > to play with it again and have added 2 new features that ppl have asked for in > the past: > > TrueType font embedding > Unicode mapping > > The first one, of course, allows you to use most TrueType fonts in your PDFs. > Just upload them to the mainframe as variable record files and use the new > XFONT parameters. Aside from the obvious benefit of being able to spiff up > the > reports even more, you also get proper character spacing for proportional > fonts. > And yes, barcode fonts should be usable too. Font subsetting will be > available > in the next release. > > I added the Unicode mapping option to use in combination with the font > embedding > as it allows you to map single byte characters to any unicode character. I > chose to use the UCM file format since there are many well maintained ones at > www.icu.org. > > But, half way through adding the mapping option, I realized that it could also > be used instead of the character translation tables that can be fed to TXT2PDF > to allow converting input text from one codepage to one usable in a PDF. > > This would mean that the input text would no longer be converted...it would > remain exactly the same as the original input. The mapping would be embedded > within the PDF and the viewer (Acrobat Reader) would do the translation before > display. > > So, my question is should I allow for this type of usage? If so, should I > remove the translation tables entirely or should I give the user the option of > using either one or both? > > I guess another couple of questions would be to ask if anyone even uses > TXT2PDF > anymore and if they have ever mucked about with the translation tables? > > Thanks, > > Leland >
