![]() ![]() Here it is explanation in practical application:įor tibetan language it is three fonts from about 50 who follow this Adobe Glyph List Convention. In chapter Examples it is more explanations May all be happy and healthy and read the books of wisdom!Īdobe Glyph List Specification (AGL) or Adobe Glyph Naming convention described by Adobe in this document in Adobe font tools: Thank you for your kind reply and good will for cooperation. Maybe better to rasterize at the same size, and then compare the images? I'm not sure how you could compare vector outlines between two different fonts. If the full font is available, I would expect that approach to work pretty well. I hadn't thought about comparing glyph outlines to the original font. For example, if we have a PDF font with no Unicode information, we could render each character at some size (chosen to be an ideal size for the OCR engine), and then use the resulting information (glyph-to-Unicode mapping) in Xpdf, the same way that the PDF ToUnicode CMap is used now. Please consider opportunity of extend XPDF ability by OCR.ĭuring this summer we will research XPDF-OCR integration opportunities.Īnother really interesting suggestion. We may train it on another Western and Asian languages. It is compatible with XPDF on base of C language. For now main area of application it is tibetan printed texts and manuscript recognition. Our team many years have in development OCRLib GPL library. ![]() For text in scanned pages images we may apply classic image OCR and provide OCR layer in PDF documents. One base of glyph output instruction comparison between embedded partial font and original font it is possible reconstruct cMap table for embedded font.Ģ.In case we have not original embedded font it is possible compare glyph shape from embedded font with glyphs shapes few fonts of this language.ģ. One of the possible solution it is use OCR methods for PDF conversion to editable formats.ġ. Obviously if even Microsoft not follow this naming convention, very few fonts developers know about this convention.Īlso dynamic ligatures decomposition it is one of many OpenType features which compose complex letters. XPDF may implement this rule too, so for fonts which use this naming convention XPDF will generate correct dynamic ligatures decomposition. uniXXXXįor now this rule implementation we was able to found only in Adobe programs. If some ligatures named as uniXXXXXXXX.XXXX it will have cMap value uniXXXX + uniXXXX +. One of them it is OpenType dynamic ligatures naming convention. This is main reason text in HTML5 it is possible to copy and edit the same way as text in any text editor.Īdobe make few rules to solve this PDF format problem. HTML5 is more young format and it is used the whole font with all OpenType features. PDF placed glyph outline on some place on page and store this outline as glyph in font with no any OpenTypes rules in it. All this Open Types rules PDF just ignore. ![]() Every letter in font has name and 1-256 character code - same as in Type1 fonts.Īt present most part of fonts have few thousands glyphs and most part of font output generated by OpenType features. In time PDF was created as format OpenType fonts was not existed. This problem with dynamic ligatures it is part of more general problem with PDF format. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |