On Monday 29 Jul 2013 09:27:05 Heinz-Jürgen Oertel wrote: > Am Sonntag 28 Juli 2013, 22:24:03 schrieb Werner LEMBERG: > > > If I code the text with \[u u030A] I expect it to be in the PDF. > > > > This glyph is only contained in the URW fonts. For example, try this > > > > with the PDF backend: > > .fam U-T > > uring: \[u u030A] > > > > Werner > > Thanks Werner > I now use -Tpdf and "Latin small letter u with ring above" > and most others work. > I still have sometimes problems with the special glyphs. > It seems that it depends on the order they are called. > At the moment I'm not able to reproduce it clearly with a small example. > Attached is a part of the generated PDF (as png, it is smaller) > and the generated HTML. > > The word is written as groff test "\[vs]\[n ah]\[u016F]ra" > > As said it does work mostly, but not always. > And it happens, whether i use \[u u030A] or \[u016F]. > > > best regards > Heinz
The problem you are seeing may well be a bug with the new pdf driver, particularly as you only see it in certain circumstances, if you can send me an example of the troff source which exhibits the problem, I will be able to debug if it is a problem with the driver. One workaround, if it is indeed a bug in gropdf, is to copy all the U- fonts from devpdf to devps and copy the relevent lines from devpdf/download to the devps/download file. This will mean you can process the input with the traditional grops | ps2pdf method (to see if the issue goes away!). Cheers Deri
