[tex-live] texmf-dist/doc/xelatex/xltxtra/xltxtra.pdf

Sanjoy Mahajan sanjoy at mrao.cam.ac.uk
Sun Jan 21 06:58:43 CET 2007


Interesting investigation.  

By running pdf2ps with -dDEBUG I had also found that the Bitstream
fonts were causing problems.  The complaints about ND and RD happened
while gs was parsing one of the Bitstream Charter fonts, but I
couldn't figure out how to uncompress the font stream to see how ND
and RD were defined.

Probably this bugfix for gs 8.54 solved those messages (log entry from
History8.htm in the gs-8.54 tar.bz2).  It looks like Bitstream falls
into the category of 'correct but old-fashioned', so maybe the bug
really is in gs and it's okay to leave the .pfb's as is.  If so, sorry
for the noise!  [And I am now 100% convinced that gs is not useful as
a PDF validator.  As Heiko said, if anyone knows of a free-software
PDF validator, do tell.]

      2006-01-11T13:20:01.631161Z Alex Cherepanov

      Move back-up CharString construction procedures (RD, ND, ...) to a
      special dictionary and put it below userdict to avoid warnings
      when the font defines them in userdict.

      Bug 688464


      Some broken fonts forget to define CharString construction
      procedures because non-PostScript font rasterizers don't detect
      this error. Ghostscript has a back-up definitions of the
      procedures that do their job and issue a warning.

      Other correct but old-fashioned fonts define CharString
      construction procedures in userdict. We had the back-up procedures
      defined above userdict, where they preempted the userdict
      definitions and issued a bogus warning. This patch moves the
      definitions below userdict.



`Not all those who wander are lost.' (J.R.R. Tolkien)

More information about the tex-live mailing list