xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christer Morén" <christer.mo...@omgroup.com>
Subject Re: &#8594; does not produce a right-arrow
Date Fri, 13 Oct 2000 07:21:01 GMT

I'm using the same acrobat reader, the same operating system and even the same
machine, when I'm viewing the pdf document (both fop and jade + dsssl +
PDFWriter created). The html and the fop pdf goes is created with the same
program, just different backends. Therefore I think it's FOP which fails
creating the correct character.

The FOP i'm using is a cvs version from august 22. Anyone who knows if newer
versions can handle these characters or if the version I'm using already can??

/Christer Moren

"Christer Morén" wrote:
> I need a right arrow -> and tried &#8594; which works fine when I
> produce html or use jade + dsssl + PDFWriter to produce pdf, but when
> I used the same entity with FOP it is displayed as an registered
> sign (&#174;)
&#174; looks like this: ®. It's an ANSI or ISO/IEC 8559-1 (Latin 1).
&#8594; thereas is a unicode character (two bytes long). Unicode
characters can only be displayed if the operating system, the used font
and the used displaying application are unicode-compatible. For instance
Windows NT (with actual service pack) and Windows 2000 are
unicode-compatible and deliver some unicode fonts. Netscape 4.7.5 is
(with very few exceptions) not unicode-compatible. Using unicode
entities in Netscape only shows a question mark (this also occurs with
&#8594;). Completely unicode-noncompatible applications therefore will
just display one byte of the character value and ignore the other,
giving you the reg-character. this is similar to the change German
Umlaute (ä, ö, ü, ß) experience if displayed on a seven-bit-per-byte
machine (I encountered this on an IBM S/390 mainframe).
So if you change the applications you're using you'll get the correct
character. Maybe even your FOP implementation isn't unicode-compatible.

Hope that helps.
Best regards,
Martin Stricker

View raw message