Would anyone know if it's possible to do a find and replace text with pitstop?
For example, finding é and replacing it with e. (note accent on e).
Use I do believe it it is with an action list. I don't have Pitstop at home so I can't try it right now.
Quote from: Joe on December 05, 2016, 08:32:12 AMUse I do believe it it is with an action list. I don't have Pitstop at home so I can't try it right now.
At home? Really? :drunk3:
Yes, I don't do Monday's. Tuesday-Friday for my work week.
I'd like that..... seeing as I do Mon-Fri and more often than not a Saturday or a Sunday.
:drunk3:
I can't even remember the last Saturday or Sunday I worked.
And to answer your question take a look at this:
http://www.enfocus.com/manuals/ReferenceGuide/PP/11/enUS/en-us/task/ta_find_replace_text.html
This link may be a bit more up to date:
http://www.enfocus.com/manuals/ReferenceGuide/PP/13/enUS/en-us/common/ppr/task/ta_find_replace_text.html
I agree with Joe. I've never had to do that in Pitstop, so I just looked at Global Changes/Action Lists and don't see a pre-programmed one. You may need to create one.
Iceni InFix should be able to. We were doing it at one point when we were looking at taking it on.
It worked, but i could only get it to do one at a time, like find next, replace. Which was ok, because I wanted to see what was happening and there were not that many to replace anyway. Even though it was an 11000+ page pdf, if there were alot to replace, it could have become tedious.
Hi all, we've talked about making an Action for find and replace, but we've resisted so far as we think it's potentially a really dangerous Action. The issue is the expectation that users would have.
When you take into account things like subset fonts and other problems around fonts in PDF, we think the manual approach is the best way.
What do you think, if enough people think it's something we should do, I'm open to do it?
Quote from: abc on December 12, 2016, 04:55:25 AMHi all, we've talked about making an Action for find and replace, but we've resisted so far as we think it's potentially a really dangerous Action. The issue is the expectation that users would have.
When you take into account things like subset fonts and other problems around fonts in PDF, we think the manual approach is the best way.
What do you think, if enough people think it's something we can do, I'm open to do it?
Manual, for all the reasons you mentioned.
Yeah, I hear ya, it was nice to see what was going on, one change at a time, ya know, reflow and all. Would'nt trust it in a pdf for sure.
Maybe...,
if there were an over-riding action that only allows it if the full font set is embedded (or forces you to embed the font prior to the onset of the process) and not an embedded subset, where the character may not be included..