Hello, Currently I have still a problem when exporting to a PDF file. The worst part is, that the PDF umlauts Ää Öö Üü are completely missing, which is a no go. The font I use is Helvetica in Win7 64bit. When I choose Arial, than it works, no missing characters but the documents I use are written in Helvetica. Is there any solution to that? P.S. I love the freeOffice idea... Thank You so much.
Can you attach a (minimal) document and the generated pdf? Which reader are you using? Cannot reproduce on Ubuntu 14.04 using Libreoffice Version: 4.2.7.2 Build ID: 420m0(Build:2). Exporting umlauts to pdf just works fine.
Created attachment 113334 [details] Example in PDF This is what I see, and not see after the PDF-Export.
Created attachment 113336 [details] My Test Document The Source In the Document, everything ist ok.
I' am using Acrobat 11 and PDFExchange Viewer. I think, what I need is a fix, workaround for the Helvetica TT font.
Funny, when I open my test PDF-File in the Firefox browser, there is only the first Ö missing. Everything seems to be ok than. But I can't still not see it in my normal pdf-viewer's.
Dear Bug Submitter, This bug has been in NEEDINFO status with no change for at least 6 months. Please provide the requested information as soon as possible and mark the bug as UNCONFIRMED. Due to regular bug tracker maintenance, if the bug is still in NEEDINFO status with no change in 30 days the QA team will close the bug as INVALID due to lack of needed information. For more information about our NEEDINFO policy please read the wiki located here: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/FDO/NEEDINFO If you have already provided the requested information, please mark the bug as UNCONFIRMED so that the QA team knows that the bug is ready to be confirmed. Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team This NEEDINFO message was generated on: 2015-09-03
Even in the new version 5; this problem still exists for me. MyBe I should have used another font ;-). No big deal, when nobody else got this functions.
Isn't this the same as 34212? Or what's the differnce?
Dear Bug Submitter, Please read this message in its entirety before proceeding. Your bug report is being closed as INVALID due to inactivity and a lack of information which is needed in order to accurately reproduce and confirm the problem. We encourage you to retest your bug against the latest release. If the issue is still present in the latest stable release, we need the following information (please ignore any that you've already provided): a) Provide details of your system including your operating system and the latest version of LibreOffice that you have confirmed the bug to be present b) Provide easy to reproduce steps – the simpler the better c) Provide any test case(s) which will help us confirm the problem d) Provide screenshots of the problem if you think it might help e) Read all comments and provide any requested information Once all of this is done, please set the bug back to UNCONFIRMED and we will attempt to reproduce the issue. Please do not: a) respond via email b) update the version field in the bug or any of the other details on the top section of our bug tracker Warm Regards, QA Team This INVALID Message was generated on: 2016-05-09
Created attachment 124945 [details] Generated PDF document, without any umlaut characters I think all that information was already provided and it's just that no-one set the proper status? Anyways, just tested it again in the current version (under Linux): Version: 5.1.2.2.0+ Build ID: 5.1.2.2 Arch Linux build-1 Still the same result: the generated PDF lacks all umlaut characters when viewed in some PDF viewers. (Firefox, for example, shows them, albeit in a completely different font.)
Created attachment 124946 [details] Source document with umlaut characters
Even in the new version, this error is still there. And its easy to see and understand. I provided everything you need to understand. ... an some do. I am so sorry.
affects me also and still
*** Bug 100309 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Without helvetica installed on Linux Mint 17.3 (ubuntu 14.04 base) system, i cant reproduce this either in 3.3 or master using attachment 113336 [details]. Version: 5.3.0.0.alpha0+ Build ID: f309531cfe1d6a1b6ea1306d45ed3e121145bc5f CPU Threads: 2; OS Version: Linux 3.19; UI Render: default; TinderBox: Linux-rpm_deb-x86_64@70-TDF, Branch:master, Time: 2016-10-04_03:52:18 Locale: en-US (en_US.UTF-8); Calc: group
Using the attachment from comment 15 I get the following result: I can reproduce the bug using the PDF-Export in LibreOffice. I can't reproduce the bug using the external programme PDF-Creator. Version: 5.2.2.2 (x64) Build-ID: 8f96e87c890bf8fa77463cd4b640a2312823f3ad CPU-Threads: 4; BS-Version: Windows 6.19; UI-Render: Standard; Gebietsschema: de-DE (de_DE); Calc: group
For me, this problems appears to be fixed in version 5.2.2.2.0+ (Build ID: 5.2.2-1) – the latest in Arch Linux. (Or maybe it has to do with changes in Evince? Not 100% sure.)
*** Bug 99049 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 102739 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 88319 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
A user on reddit said "This occurs using the font "Liberation Sans Bold". I use Windows 7." https://www.reddit.com/r/libreoffice/comments/55jyu1/libreoffice_writers_pdf_export/ Unfortunately i dont have windows 7, but have window 8.1 and tested attachment 113336 [details] and attachment 124946 [details] without having Helvetica, Disgusting Behaviour, or Nimbus Roman No9 L fonts on my computer and there wasnt any problems with the pdf export with 5.2.1.2. @Stuart, @Bouvaja: Do you guys have a windows 7 machine.
(In reply to Yousuf Philips (jay) from comment #21) On Windows 7 sp1 32-bit en-US with Version: 5.1.3.2 Build ID: 644e4637d1d8544fd9f56425bd6cec110e49301b CPU Threads: 1; OS Version: Windows 6.1; UI Render: default; Locale: en-US (en_US) Can not reproduce. I opened attachment 124946 [details] and attachment 113336 [details] Of course I do not have Helvetica, Discusting Behavior, or Nimbus installed--so both documents render with replacement fonts, and on export to PDF with substitute fonts with their umlauts intact. The Nimbus is exported as TimesNewRomanPSMT. The Helvetica as Liberation Sans. And the Disgusting Behavior as DejaVu Sans and Source Sans. But, this looks to be duplicate of bug 34212 which has https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/29792/1 pending review Perhaps give that a chance to post and retest.
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #22) > But, this looks to be duplicate of bug 34212 which has > https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/29792/1 pending review Btw. regarding type 1 fonts: https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2016-October/075547.html "Type 1 fonts are not supported. They can be supported with some effort, but Type 1 fonts have been obsolete for more than 15 years and I’d like to use this opportunity to drop support for them and cleanup some of the ugly code we have."
(In reply to Buovjaga from comment #23) > (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #22) > > But, this looks to be duplicate of bug 34212 which has > > https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/29792/1 pending review > > Btw. regarding type 1 fonts: > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2016-October/075547.html > > "Type 1 fonts are not supported. They can be supported with some effort, but > Type 1 fonts have been obsolete for more than 15 years and I’d like to use > this opportunity to drop support for them and cleanup some of the ugly code > we have." I personally don't much care what the developers do with LO on windows platform, but linux platform advertises itself as a "platform for the people", of sorts. Now, I don't actually expect to have any import on that matter, but the quote's an example of rather unpleasant tone OSS developers are universally taking these days. Won't this and won't that, that thing's obsolete and that thing won't be missed by anybody. If you want something, write it yourself. Hardly "for the people", this. The fonts issue: I've bought a disk with type 1 fonts in 1997 -- how is it "obsolete", please? Half of my legacy equipment works perfectly, but has no hope of running modern OSS software, and for what gains? I can not do significantly more with LO these days (excepting the new import/export formats), than I'd been doing in like 1999, when it was named StarOffice for OS/2.
> The fonts issue: I've bought a disk with type 1 fonts in 1997 -- how is it > "obsolete", please? They don’t support Unicode, they are limited to 256 characters/glyphs, they don’t support complex scripts. Even Adobe stopped making them for a decade and half now. You can convert Type 1 fonts to OpenType using freely available tools, like makeotf from AFDKO (http://www.adobe.com/devnet/opentype/afdko.html) and as a bonus this bug with be “magically” fixed.
(In reply to Khaled Hosny from comment #25) > > The fonts issue: I've bought a disk with type 1 fonts in 1997 -- how is it > > "obsolete", please? > > They don’t support Unicode, they are limited to 256 characters/glyphs, they > don’t support complex scripts. Even Adobe stopped making them for a decade > and half now. I feel that's a very wrong approach, somehow on par, BTW, with "snubbing" the word 2003 import/export issues. Let's not have an argument, just one thought, though: so those fonts can't "do" those fancy things. They still have the glyphs for which they were bought, however. Or do they? > You can convert Type 1 fonts to OpenType using freely available tools, like > makeotf from AFDKO (http://www.adobe.com/devnet/opentype/afdko.html) and as > a bonus this bug with be “magically” fixed. Or open/export in FontForge. That's not the point. That sort of pruning of "obsolete"/"unneeded" features (while bloating the deliverables simultaneously, somehow) does the product no good. In other words, alternative product (LO vs Word) can have "can't's".
> That sort of pruning of "obsolete"/"unneeded" features Keeping support for Type 1 fonts requires active work and code no one is writing. Unless you are volunteering to do the needed work, you are simply feel entitled that others do work they don’t won’t to do to support features you want. As you should have seen from the email, we are rewriting the text layout engine to be cross-platform and to solve tens of real bugs people have been reporting, there is no way we are going to postpone this just to keep supporting obsolete technology. You can always choose to not upgrade, or use different software or whatever.
(In reply to Khaled Hosny from comment #27) > > That sort of pruning of "obsolete"/"unneeded" features > > Keeping support for Type 1 fonts requires active work and code no one is > writing. Unless you are volunteering to do the needed work, you are simply > feel entitled that others do work they don’t won’t to do to support features > you want. > > As you should have seen from the email, we are rewriting the text layout > engine to be cross-platform and to solve tens of real bugs people have been > reporting, there is no way we are going to postpone this just to keep > supporting obsolete technology. You can always choose to not upgrade, or use > different software or whatever. Dear Khaled and fellows of the community, I'm not aspiring to stand with a whip over you or even to suggest that you do the work you do not fancy. However, if I may stretch a little what _you_ say, it goes to "we do what we want and be grateful" (in the very spirit of Bruce Sterling rant on OSS). May I remind you that the only real payout on the (unpaid) OSS work, excepting the "fame" or CV stuff, is user base/support? Those nameless fellas throughout the world who trust the (general use) software "with absolutely no guarantees", often in the face of workplace/etc. opposition/opinion? By taking out features (ANY features) you are undermining their position, you know. In other words, OSS is not charity, with one side doing what it pleases, and the other side meekly accepting anything it's thrown (or getting stuffed; Bruce Sterling again, it seems). OSS is a process which entitles some responsibility on the devs side, after all. And I wouldn't get so proud of LibreOffice development results in the last couple of years, anyway. Series 3 was okay, but in series 4 and 5 it got bulky and unsafe. I'm having lots of issues, some of them work-stopping, which take devs years to even look at, and now I'm actually waiting with my breath hold for a completion of the "big project" here to move the LO out of the principal workflow. Unsafe for the real work, after 20 years of use, SO/OO/LO became, what?
Yes; ok, I understand the point of the developers. Sorry I cannot program the stuff by myself. From time to time I give some money to help. I understand the idea with the cut, for old things. I also understand, that there are a lot of alternative fonts, that look a bit like the old PS1-fonts. As long, as you can find this program limitation in the manual, this is no issue. Maybe a warning, for using the wrong font. I just wanted to help, finding problems, for getting better ;-). Thanks for a great software. And many thanks to the team.
Sweeping my comment under the "no-value" carpet won't make go away the problem I'm referring to, thank you very much.
(In reply to Yury from comment #30) > Sweeping my comment under the "no-value" carpet won't make go away the > problem I'm referring to, thank you very much. Yury, please stop this and focus your energy on concrete things, such as recruiting new developers to implement the type 1 support for the new Harfbuzz solution. I will continue to sweep such useless comments under no-value, off-topic or whichever rug is appropriate.
The ESC decided to drop support for Type 1 fonts, so I’m closing this as invalid since 5.3 does not support Type 1 fonts by default (they are still supported by the old, non-default layout engine but this will also go away). Please re-open if the bug is still reproducible with 5.3.
(In reply to Khaled Hosny from comment #32) > The ESC decided to drop support for Type 1 fonts Or more kindly... to not put the effort necessary into supporting the unsupportable format--the Harfbuzz common layout handles instances fairly well with replacement otf/ttf fonts. -=ref-= http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-minutes-of-ESC-call-tc4198434.html