Re: Ghostscript and new PDF interpreter

Wow. Congratulations! On Fri, 24 Feb 2023, 08:02 Werner LEMBERG, wrote: > > Six weeks ago I wrote about a very unpleasant size increase of > `notation.pdf` from 8MByte to 27MByte with the new PDF engine of `gs`: > > >>> I'll soon file a bug report for GS regarding the size issue. > >> > >> This

Re: Ghostscript and new PDF interpreter

Six weeks ago I wrote about a very unpleasant size increase of `notation.pdf` from 8MByte to 27MByte with the new PDF engine of `gs`: >>> I'll soon file a bug report for GS regarding the size issue. >> >> This is now >> >> https://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706316 > > The GS peopl

Re: Ghostscript and new PDF interpreter

> Ghostscript's Ken Sharp says: > > " > The new PDF interpreter uses the object number, which is the unique > identifier in PDF files, to key the fonts and as a result there is > no longer any possibility of confusing two different fonts as being > the same. > " >

Re: Ghostscript and new PDF interpreter

On 1/10/2023 4:46 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote: And no possibility of 'unifying' different fonts with the [new] pdfwrite device.' Ghostscript's Ken Sharp says: " The new PDF interpreter uses the object number, which is the unique identifier in PDF files, to key the fonts and as a result there is

Re: Ghostscript and new PDF interpreter

>> I'll soon file a bug report for GS regarding the size issue. > > This is now > > https://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706316 And the answer is a devastating 'you were taking advantage of a limitation in the old PDF interpreter, not a feature [...] And no possibility of 'unifying'

Re: Ghostscript and new PDF interpreter

> I'll soon file a bug report for GS regarding the size issue. This is now https://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706316 Werner

Re: Ghostscript and new PDF interpreter

> Let me add a combination here: Ghostscript 10.01.0 built from > current git (commit 462efa959) yields 28MB with extractpdfmark and > working links (AFAICT), without changes to LilyPond. The reason is > likely > http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=ghostpdl.git;h=073c1adebeef38317ae0e6cb0f6d366ddaadb3

Re: Ghostscript and new PDF interpreter

On Fri, 2023-01-06 at 09:39 +, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > >   LilyPond  extract  GS    size >   backend   pdfmark  GS  option    of NR  comments >   -- >   standard  no   9.56.1  --    44MB   ok >

Re: Ghostscript and new PDF interpreter

> [...] I don't see an immediate connection between the new PDF > interpreter and file size increase (this is what "perfectly fine" > was referring to). Too much info is floating around, so here is a table that shows the various possibilities we are currently investigating. * Everything is based

Re: Ghostscript and new PDF interpreter

On Thu, 2023-01-05 at 20:56 +, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > > On the other hand, GS's new PDF engine no longer contains a PS > > > interpreter; it is possible that `extractpdfmark` doesn't work > > > anymore, and we have to find something new... > > > > This is wrong, or at least the new PDF *int

Re: Ghostscript and new PDF interpreter

>> On the other hand, GS's new PDF engine no longer contains a PS >> interpreter; it is possible that `extractpdfmark` doesn't work >> anymore, and we have to find something new... > > This is wrong, or at least the new PDF *interpreter* (which is, in > my understanding, not to be confused with