I have run into a problem with iText 7 where diacritic marks are painted on top of one another instead of stacking properly when multiple marks are used on a single character. Is there a setting that makes them appear correctly, or is this a bug in iText 7? Any help greatly appreciated. This can be observed if you create a text object in your PDF like below. Obviously, replace the relevant bit with an actual font object, rather than than what I have in there.
new Text("ḗ and ṓ are characters that display incorrectly").setFont(<UNICODE COMPATIBLE FONT LIKE CHARIS>);
While Bruno and Benoit correctly pointed out that for advanced typography stuff like stacking diacritical marks you need pdfCalligraph module, there is a workaround you can try at your own risk. If your combinations of base glyph and diacritics are real, meaning they occur in real texts in some languages or some other known contexts, then such combinations are most probably present in Unicode and have their own number associated with them. For instance, in text you provided, they are 0xU1E17 and 0x1E53 Unicode characters. Some fonts may contain such glyphs, so that there is a second option to showing base glyph and stacking diacritics: showing combined glyphs. For example, ArialUni shipped with Windows does contain the above mentioned glyphs.
To try this approach, you would need the following code for composing known Unicode base glyph + diacritics combinations into single glyphs:
String originalStr = "ḗ and ṓ are characters that display incorrectly";
String normalizedStr = java.text.Normalizer.normalize(originalStr, Normalizer.Form.NFC);
new Text(normalizedStr); // Use this normalized Text instance
The result that I got with ArialUni:
But again as I mentioned do it at your own risk because it will only work if there are necessary combinations present both in Unicode and font. For correct rendering you still should use pdfCalligraph.
Related
I needed to convert some PDF back to text. I tried many soft and online tools and result was always mediocre.
Why is it so difficult technically speaking ?
Let's not assume you are talking about PDFs which merely wrap some bitmap image because it should be clear that in that case you can only resort to OCR with all its restrictions.
Let's instead assume that text is drawn in the PDF at hand.
What is drawn on a PDF page is determined by a sequence of instructions in the content stream of that page. "Text is drawn" on a page means that among those instructions there are some setting the font to use by the instructions to come, some setting the text position and direction to use by the instructions to come, and some actually drawing text given by "string arguments".
Text extraction is the task of taking the sequence of instructions from a content stream and instead of drawing the text as indicated by the font and position setting instructions, to export it in a sensible order using a standard encoding, usually the encoding of the character type of the used programming language / platform.
The first problem is to understand the encoding of the string arguments of those text drawing instructions:
each font can have its own encoding; to extract the text one cannot simply ignore everything but the instructions drawing text and concatenate their string contents, you always have to take the current font into account (some extremely simple text extractors ignore this and, therefore, fail pretty often to return something sensible);
there are a large number of predefined encodings, some reminding of encodings you know, e.g. WinAnsiEncoding, many you likely don't know, e.g. Add-RKSJ-H; these encodings may use a constant number of bytes per glyph or they may be mixed-multibyte; so a text extractor must support very many encodings to start with;
encodings also may be completely ad-hoc and arbitrary; in particular in case of embedded subset fonts one often sees ad-hoc encodings generated by dealing out character codes from some starting value whenever one is needed; i.e. the first glyph in a given font used on a page is given the starting value as code, the next, different glyph is given the starting value plus one, the next, different one the starting value plus two, etc; "Hello World" and a starting value of 48 (ASCII value of '0') would result in "01223453627"; these fonts may contain a mapping to Unicode but they are not required to.
The next problem is to make sense out of the order of the strings:
the string drawing instructions may occur in an arbitrary order, e.g "Hello" might be drawn "lo" first, then after moving back "el", then after again moving back "H"; to extract the text one cannot ignore text positioning instructions and simply concatenate text strings, you always have to take the current position into account (some simple text extractors ignore this and, therefore, can fail to return something sensible);
multi-columnar text may present a difficulty, text may be drawn line by line, e.g. first the text of the top line of the first column, then the top line of the second column, then the second line of the first column, then the second line of the second column, etc.; there need not be any hints in the PDF that the text is multi-columnar.
Another problem is to recognize formatting or styling artifacts:
spaces between words need not be created by drawing a space glyph, it may also be done by text position changing instructions; text extractors not trying to recognize gaps created by text positioning instructions may return a result without spaces; on the other hand the same technique can be used to draw adjacent glyphs at an optimal distance, aka kerning; text extractors trying to recognize gaps created by text positioning instructions may falsely return spaces where there should be none;
sometimes selected words are printed s p a c e d o u t for extra emphasis; in the extracted text these gaps might be presented as space characters which automatic postprocessing of the text may see as word separators;
usually for bold text one uses a different, bold font program; if that is not at hand, people sometimes get creative and emulate bold by printing the same text twice with a minute offset; with a slightly larger offset (or a different transformation) and a different color a shadow effect can be emulated; if the text extractor does not try to recognize this, you end up having some duplicate characters in the output.
More problems arise due to incomplete or wrong extra information:
ToUnicode maps of fonts (optional maps from character code to Unicode) may be incomplete or contain errors; there e.g. are many questions here on stack overflow dealing with incorrect ToUnicode maps for Indian writings; the text extraction results reflect these errors;
there even are PDFs with contradictory information, e.g. with an error in the ToUnicode map but the correct information in an ActualText entry; this is used by some PDF creators to allow correct copy&paste from some programs (preferring an ActualText entry in such a situation) while injecting errors in the output of other programs (preferring ToUnicode information then).
Yet another problem arises if you expect the text extractor to extract only text eventually visible in the page:
text may be drawn outside the current clipping area or outside the visible page area; text extractors need to keep these in mind;
text may be drawn using the rendering mode "invisible"; text extractors have to keep an eye on the rendering mode;
text may be drawn using the same color as the background; to recognize this, a text extractor can not only look at the current instruction and a few graphics state details, it has to take into account anything drawn beforehand in the location of the text;
text may be drawn as a clip path; to recognize whether this text is visible in the end, a text extractor must keep track of what is drawn in the text area as long as the clip path is active;
text may be covered by something else later; a text extractor must drop recognized text in such a case; but depending on blend modes and transparency settings these coverings might or might not allow the text to shine through; thus, for a correct result the text extractor must for each glyph keep track of the color its drawn with, the color of the backdrop, and what all those spiffy effects do with those colors later on; and of course, both glyph color and backdrop color can be interesting, e.g. some shading colors; and the color spaces involved may differ, requiring one to convert back and forth between color spaces; and so on.
Furthermore, text may be drawn where text extractors usually don't look:
some tools hide text from text extraction by putting it into a pattern and filling the page area with that pattern;
similarly there are type 3 fonts; each character in a type 3 font is represented by its own content stream; thus, a tool can draw all text in the content stream of a single type 3 font glyph and then draw that glyph on the page.
...
You surely have meanwhile gotten an idea why text extraction results can be less than optimal. And be assured, the list above is not complete, there still are more complications for text extraction.
I've been trying to make use of the Unicode symbols for astrology in products for both Apple and iOS. I'm getting inconsistent results, as shown here:
Most of these are coming out as I like, but for some reason the Taurus symbol is appearing one way on the first line, following the Moon, and a very different way, with the Emoji-like purple button, when it follows Mars. These results are consistent for different symbols and across Apple hardware; here's a screen capture from my phone showing the same problem with some other signs - Scorpio comes out all right, but Libra and Cancer are buttons.
The strings are extremely straightforward; "Moon Taurus" in the first image is \u263D for Moon, \u2649 for Taurus, basically assembled as [NSString stringWithFormat:#"%#%#", #"\u263D", #"\u2649"]. The "Mars Taurus" image is the same, only with \u2642 for Mars. The string formatting is identical in the different cells of the OSX table, and in the iOS AttributedString.
Any idea what makes these symbols appear one way sometimes, and another way other times?
Unicode uses variation sequences to select between different renderings for certain code points—listed in the StandardizedVariants.txt file. In your case, the astrological symbols have both "text style" and "emoji style" variants that are selected between by a U+FEOE (text style) or U+FE0F (emoji style) following the code point:
U+2650 U+FE0E: ♐︎
U+2650 U+FE0F: ♐️
Note that correct interpretation of the variation selector depends on support from both the application/framework and the fonts being used. On Chrome (42) there doesn't appear to be any difference between my examples above, but on Safari (8) they are distinct.
In the same application I have two different instances of wxStaticText. Each displays an angular value expressed in degrees. I've tested both instances for font name and font encoding. They are the same for both. I've tested that both strings passed to SetLabel() are using the same character value, decimal 176. Yet one displays the 'degree' character (small circle, up high) as expected and the other instead displays an odd character I'm not familiar with. How can this be? Is there some other property of wxStaticText I need to test?
I can't explain what you're seeing because obviously two identical controls must behave in the same way, but I can tell you that using decimal 176 is not a good way to encode the degree sign, unless you explicitly use wxConvISO8859_1 to create the corresponding wxString.
It is better to use wxString::FromUTF8("\xc2\xb0") instead or, preferably, make sure that your source files are UTF-8 encoded and just use wxString::FromUTF8("°").
Arghhhh! Found it. I was assuming SetLabel() was wxStaticText::SetLabel(), inherited from the wxWindow base class. It's not. We have a wrapper class of our own around wxStaticText that I was not aware of. It's the wrapper class that is bollixing the string value.
Moral: When debugging unfamiliar code, don't make assumptions, step ALL THE WAY in.
I have a question regarding a weird form field behaviour.
Two pdf documents, both have textfield(s) using Helvetica as a font
Both are filled with values using the same iText logic (cp. below)
The field value (/V) is correct for both PDFs however the field appearance is not.
One Pdf is working fine the other scrambles special character like the euro symbol € or German characters like üöäß.
I tried to define a substitute font (as described in the book) however never got € and ß to work.
The only difference I could find is that a /DR dictionary is defined on field level for the non-working PDF (in adition to the global one). But if I remove it, the € sign still doesn't work. Please note, that I am not talking about asian or some exotic unicode characters here - all are part of the standard helvetica font (as the other PDF proves)
Question(s):
Any ideas how to get the non working PDF to correctly display the characters?
Or does the PDF violates the pdf spec somehow? (It was created using Acrobat which makes that unlikely but not impossible).
If you suggest to replace the form field font - how can I differentiate between working and non working PDF files since I don't want to do that for perfectly valid and working files
Update: The code is not the problem (I am certain of that since its the same code for both) however for the sake of completeness here it is:
AcroFields acroFields = stamper.getAcroFields();
try {
boolean successful = acroFields.setField("Mitarbeiter", "öäü߀#");
if (!successful) {
//throw some exception
}
}
catch (DocumentException de) {
//some exceptionhandling
}
I didn't find any clues in the PDF reference about this, but the font that is used for the field doesn't define an encoding. However: an encoding is defined at the level of the resource dictionary (/DR). If you use that encoding, then the appearance of the field is created correctly. Note that the ISO specification doesn't say anything about the existence of an /Encoding entry at the level of the resource dictionary.
I've made a small update to iText. You can check the changes in revision 6693. This way, iText will now check if the /DR dictionary has encoding values in case no encoding is defined at the level of the font. With this fix, your form is filled out correctly.
Say I have a PDF file that contains one or more embedded fonts. Here's my understanding of how a single character of text is rendered:
First, determine which font the character uses.
Use the font's "cmap," embedded in the PDF, to determine the font's glyph name for the given character. For example, the character '&' in PDF text might map to a glyph that the font internally calls 'ampersand'.
Use the font's "glyf" table to determine the bounding box / drawing instructions for the glyph name.
Here's my question: is a PDF cmap generally consistent? Put another way, if I encounter the character "&" in a PDF, can I be assured that the cmap will always map "&" to the ampersand glyph? Or does some PDF-generation software create its own arbitrary mapping between character codes and glyph names (which would be rather evil and possibly break in-PDF searching and text selection)?
Of course I realize it's possible for the cmap to use an unintuitive mapping -- I guess I'm asking, does this actually happen in the Real World?
My specific use-case is in the world of music fonts. I'm analyzing characters in a PDF to determine which music glyph each one represents (e.g., treble clef, notehead, etc.). I want to know how confident I can be that the combination of font name and character code will always result in the same glyph. For example, if I know the font name is "Opus" and the glyph is "#", can I assume that will always be mapped to the treble clef glyph? Or do I have to analyze the glyph's metrics to make sure it's actually a treble clef?
It differs from one PDF creator to another.
A fairly common method (alas!) is "order encountered", where the first character in the text stream gets mapped to \001, the next to \002 and so on. So the text "Hello" would be encoded as \001\002\003\003\004.
I want to know how confident I can be that the combination of font name and character code will always result in the same glyph.
In a single PDF document, if the same font object is used in different contexts, it will be true -- the mapping is defined inside the font object. If you encounter another font object that uses the same font but it points to another font stream (i.e., the font subset is embedded twice), then it may not be true. Each subset may have an encoding of its own.
Only if the font object contains a /ToUnicode mapping, you can be confident that values map to the correct characters.