| Summary: | Attached document is not rendered correctly | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | MuPDF | Reporter: | Fred Ross-Perry <fred.ross-perry> |
| Component: | mupdf | Assignee: | MuPDF bugs <mupdf-bugs> |
| Status: | NOTIFIED WONTFIX | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | robin.watts, sebastian.rasmussen |
| Priority: | P1 | ||
| Version: | 1.20.0 | ||
| Hardware: | PC | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Customer: | Word Size: | --- | |
| Attachments: |
Test Document
A cut down sample of page 2. |
||
|
Description
Fred Ross-Perry
2022-11-08 02:39:46 UTC
Created attachment 23463 [details]
Test Document
I'm looking at page 2, and most viewers have similar rendering to mupdf: Firefox PDF.js: Same as MuPDF. Acrobat Reader 9: Has tofu in places, otherwise same as MuPDF. Ghostscript: Has tofu in places, otherwise same as MuPDF. Evince: Looks completely different. Since PDF.js, acrobat, and ghostscript all look the same as mupdf, I'm going to assume that Evince has the correct appearance? I am seeing rather a lot of FreeType error messages for the Identity-H embedded NotoSansHans-Regular font, which leads me to suspect an issue with FreeType and/or the font file is causing these differences. Created attachment 23470 [details]
A cut down sample of page 2.
The given customer number is for a customer that doesn't use MuPDF, so it seems likely it's been added in error. |