Searchable PDFs from Graphite fonts

users
#21

Libertine G and Biolinum G fonts have been bundled with LO since LO 3.3:

So I keep on reading. But apparently not in the Debian or Ubuntu distributions(?)

Perhaps I'm missing the 'graphite' bits? When I follow the instructions
in<http://numbertext.org/linux/fontfeatures.odt> everything matches.

Are you able to post the PDF that you produce? I'd like to take a look at it with some PDF editing tools?

Thanks!

Jonathan

#22

Sent to you directly. Both the 3.5 and 3.6 versions.

#23

I got them, thanks.

They are exactly the same as my PDF - the text appears fine but if I copy and paste it then it looks like this: "This his the offichial vershion."

Cheers, Jonathan

#24

I got them, thanks.

They are exactly the same as my PDF - the text appears fine but if I
copy and paste it then it looks like this: "This his the offichial
vershion."

Cheers, Jonathan

I just sent you two files; an AOO odt, and an AOO generated PDF.

It is a font issue. I suspect that the non-problem with AOO that VA is
seeing is because AOO does not natively pick up the LO TTF Linux
Libertine G. It didn't even pick it up in ~/.fonts. Instead it will pick
up a Type 1 Linux Libertine O font. I figured this out by looking at the
PDF File|Properties|Font.

I ended up specifically installing the G fonts in AOO 3.5.0; _that_
allowed me to use G TTF instead of O Type 1. Now, when using the G TTF
font I experience the exact same issue as on LO. Moving the cursor from
the 'T' to the 'h' in 'This' causes the cursor to skip directly to 'i'.

Opening the TTF Linux Libertine G font in Fontforge generates these
warnings:

The following table(s) in the font have been ignored by FontForge
  Ignoring 'Feat' SIL Graphite layout feature table
  Ignoring 'Glat' Graphite glyph attribute table
  Ignoring 'Gloc' Graphite glyph location in Glat table
  Ignoring 'Silf' SIL Graphite rule table
  Ignoring 'Sill' (unspecified) SIL Graphite table
The glyph named Tcommaaccent is mapped to U+021A.
  But its name indicates it should be mapped to U+0162.
The glyph named tcommaaccent is mapped to U+021B.
  But its name indicates it should be mapped to U+0163.

I don't know enough about fonts to comment otherwise.

Gary

#25

On the PDF file I generated with AOO, the Properties/Font returned:

LinuxLibertineG (Embedded Subset),
Type: TrueType,
Encoding: Built in

On the PDF file I generated with LibO, the Properties/Font returned:

LinuxLibertineG (Embedded Subset),
Type: TrueType,
Encoding: Built in

In other words, both PDF files are returning the same font, Linux Libertine G, but the one created with LibO will not find "official" on a word search, whereas the one created with AOO will. A copy and paste from the LibO/PDF file will produce the "offichial" spelling, but a copy and paste from the AOO/PDF file will produce "official."

Both of my files, whether created with LibO or AOO use the same font, Linux Libertine G. Again, I'm using AOO 3.4.1 and LibO 3.5.7.2 on Win7 and Adobe Reader.

And, most importantly, I don't even have Libertine O installed on my system, so AOO can't be picking it up.

Virgil

#26

I wish I we know why you are having this issue on the 3.5.7.2 on Win7 when I do not have this one 3.5.7.2 on Ubuntu 64-bit.

When I get time, I will see what happens when I try your text on a 32-bit Vista system and a 32-bit XP/pro system, but I will have to upgrade them to 3.5.7.2 instead of their older 3.5.x versions.

Also, I will have check into the size of my font files. The versions in the ".font" folder are at least 50% of the file size of the ones in the "/opt/. . . . ." LO font folder and the ones in the archived file you pointed to in one of your posts.

So if I do not get the issue, and my "Libertine" fonts are different from yours, then it may actually be something in the font files.

#27

...

My apologies: you are correct. I've tested again with LO 3.5, 3.6, and
AOO 3.5.0 and Acroread 9.x (all linux) and found the same. I tested on a
clean system; Linux Libertine O is installed on my primary system from
'fonts-linuxlibertin' (which btw work without issue).

I still think that there is an issue with the font... and also think
it's worth filing an LO bug report.

#28

NoOp wrote

My apologies: you are correct. I've tested again with LO 3.5, 3.6, and
AOO 3.5.0 and Acroread 9.x (all linux) and found the same. I tested on a
clean system; Linux Libertine O is installed on my primary system from
'fonts-linuxlibertin' (which btw work without issue).

Do you get automatic ligatures with Libertine O? I thought that with OpenOffice and its forks, one needed Libertine G (with the Graphite port) to obtain the automatic ligatures and other advanced typographic features. I didn't think those features were available in Libertine O with AOO or LibO.

Virgil

#29

While I don't have Libertine O on my Win7 system, I do have it on my Ubuntu Wubi installation, so I tested it, and as I expected, I didn't get any automatic ligatures with Libertine O. Without the ligatures, it worked fine on a PDF export.

Then, I copied the sentence in Libertine O and, using the Insert/Special Character menu, I manually replaced the "T" "h" in "This" and the "f" "f" "i" in "official" with a "Th" "ffi" ligature in the Libertine O font. This time when I converted the file to a PDF, the search function found "This" in the Libertine G with automatic ligatures and Libertine O without ligatures, but not the Libertine O with the manually inserted "Th" ligature. But, it found "official" in both the Libertine O without ligatures and with the manually inserted "ffi" ligature.

This was done with Libertine 3.6.2.2 on Ubuntu 12.04 with Document Viewer.

I then ran the same test in AOO in Ubuntu and the PDF search found "This" in Libertine G with automatic ligatures and Libertine O without ligatures but not Libertine O with ligatures. It found "official" in all three situations.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Virgil

I ran a test where I typed the same sentence twice on one page. On the first line, I applied Libertine