On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:34:22 +0200 Florian Kulzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... > It refers to the "sub" column, which is "no" for all the fonts for me, > meaning that the full character sets have been embedded. Therefore my > printed PDF weighs in at more than 270 KB. Your system is smarter and > only embeds the font data for the characters that are actually used in > the document. Got it, thanks. > If I print the same page to postscript from iceweasel and distil that to > a PDF with ghostscript then the PDF has only the necessary subsets > embedded and it is 90 KB. I then get the same "ugly" font names in the > output of pdffonts that you have, by the way. I've been printing from IW using the virtual CUPS-PDF printer. I just tried printing to file (direct to PDF, not to ps), and I now get the same pdffonts output that you do, nice font names but all 'no's in the sub column. OTOH, I find that the file sizes are 10 - 20 percent *smaller* for pages printed directly to file from IW! I have tried three different pages: a blog post, a sales invoice and an AP news article. Your test page, OTOH, is about 4 to 5 times *larger* when printed directly to file. Perhaps the reason is that your page uses relatively few characters per font, while more typical pages tend to use much larger subsets, which limits the savings realized by only including subsets of the fonts in the file? For reference, www.debian.org is 133533 bytes when printed via CUPS-PDF, and 113840 when printed directly to a file by IW. > Florian | Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]