first time in stackoverflow :)
Let me explain what happend. I'm trying to create a PDF using iTextSharp. It displays perfectly in chrome and IE9, but in firefox the background is black.
firefox version
chrome version
Best!
If you'd inspect the PDF with Adobe Acrobat for syntax errors, the report would probably be blank. There's a 99% chance that the problem is caused by pdf.js, NOT by iText(Sharp). For some reason (ask Mozilla, don't ask me), using pdf.js is now the standard way to view PDFs in Firefox. Unfortunately, pdf.js is far from being a full-fledged PDF viewer. It doesn't support forms, it doesn't support signatures, it doesn't support many graphical objects,... It lacks many of the PDF functionality as described in ISO-32000-1.
I changed the settings in Firefox, so that it now opens PDFs in Adobe Reader, but I didn't manage to use Adobe Reader as a plug-in in Firefox the way it used to be in the past. All of this is very frustrating.
Related
I have a pdf that needs to only be opened using acrobat. This is easy enough on a configured computer. But is there a way to only allow this file to be opened using adobe regardless of what the default program is. I have a lot of computers in my firm and I have to configure app defaults for every user. If I could just force the file to require acrobat that would be awesome.
No, there is no way to indicate that a PDF should only be opened with a particular PDF viewing application. You would not even be able to rely on JavaScript in the PDF to put up a dialog to let the user know they should view the document in Adobe Acrobat because not all PDF viewers implement JavaScript.
The closest thing I can think of would be to use a rights management tool that only Adobe Acrobat works with, even this though is not guaranteed to stop users from trying to open a PDF with a viewer other than the one you want them to view it with.
PDF's goal/purpose is to provide a file format the allows the author to share content across platforms without noticeable differences. What you are looking to do is something PDF was not truly designed for.
Yesterday a colleague of mine noticed a big inconsistency between the rendering of the google Roboto Condensed font on our site, when displaying on Firefox and Chrome. On Firefox the font doesn't seem to be the same at all.
I did some reading here on stackoverflow, but I can't seem to understand if this problem is the same as mine, because the person is using local fonts, and I'm serving directly from google.
Also it seems like somewhere in the wordpress installation, the Roboto Condensed font is being called twice - once imported directly from the theme, once imported by a plugin we're using to customize the menu of the site.
On the other hand, I read that different font weights being used on the same font might produce different results in different browsers, but couldn't grasp what is the right way to use them.
Any help will be appreciated. Here is the site that I'm talking about:
www.podmosta.bg
Best Regards,
Kostadin
This is resolved now.
Turned out that I wasn't loading Roboto Condensed with included cyrillic characters included. Just loaded up the proper version of the font and everything went fine.
I have a problem with a tinymce editor in a Internet Explorer 8 application we build at work here. It works fine in chrome and firefox but those are the browsers developpers use. In IE8, the buttons are all stacked and i have no clue where to start with to fix the problem.
Here is the image:
PS: Please dont tell me to change browser, i can't overrule technical department for 900 users. It's sad that i'm still stuck with supporting IE8, but thats life!
Found the problem, it was the document mode. I added a meta to force document mode following this QA: Force document mode=IE8 Standards
So Strange issue here, if you go to this PDF file in firefox http://skincarerx.com/p_include/rebates/sc13-9842-003-skincarerx-dec-rebate-offer.pdf
you will notice on the right that a bunch of text is missing. There are more steps and the terms and conditions are missing on the bottom.
If you open the same link in Adobe Reader or Chrome (again using Adobe Reader) All the text shows up correctly.
I have tried saving the PDF as an older version of Acrobat but it didn't seem to have any effect on it.
I have seem pages Referring to FF internal PDF reader as the problem but no fix (besides not having it open in ff internal reader). I need a solution that will still allow the PDF to display correctly for the user in FF without having to disable the internal reader.
Original File was saved in Adobe Acrobat Pro
I had the same Firefox problem. I replaced Arial regular with MS Arial Unicode and the issue went away.
Funny that short documents with 2-4 pages were not effected only one document 24 pages long had the problem. Now the 24 pager works in all browsers.
I'm building an application which plays videos using the YouTube iframe API. You can see the application here.
I've run into a weird issue where the player works ok in Chrome/Safari but won't show the video correctly in Firefox (I'm using FF22 on OSX 10.7.5). You can click the play button and hear the sound but the video never appears.
Anyone got any ideas what might be wrong?
Some Observations
You can see the YouTube branding (which is part of the player) so it's there, it's just not showing any picture.
According to #ceasar in the answers, the player works on Win 7 FF22. I have another report which states that it also works fine on Ubuntu FF.
If I open up the FF developer console and click various nodes in the DOM tree of that window, the video will appear. Try clicking div.show-details to see this effect (It's under body > div.wide > div.show-details )
There is a transparent overlay over the video but I'm setting ?wmode=opaque on my iframe (like this question suggests) so that should be ok.
This question suggests that setting certain styling rules such as border-radius on the iframe can mess with it. I'm not doing anything like that.
In FF the youtube logo isn't showing but working okay (win7 FF 22). Also in the other browsers I cannot click on the youtube logo. This is against the youtube TOS and you could be banned for this so be warned