(heuristics + ML). PDFs lack a DOM tree. Text blocks must be clustered by Y-coordinates (lines), then X-coordinates (words), then sorted. For Latin, a simple top-to-bottom, left-to-right rule works 80% of the time. But for Mongolian (vertical), traditional Japanese (top-to-bottom, right-to-left columns), or mixed scripts (Arabic text with Latin numbers), static heuristics fail. Modern systems (e.g., Adobe’s Extract API, Google’s DocAI) use layout-aware transformers (LayoutLM, Donut) trained on millions of document pages to infer logical spans.
Until extractors treat Devanagari, Arabic, and Latin as equal citizens rather than Latin + exceptions, the Babel pipeline will remain incomplete. The final step is not better code. It is recognizing that a page of text is not a rectangle to be scanned, but a cultural artifact to be translated—in the deepest sense of the word. : ~1,850 Total with headings : ~2,100 multilingual-pdf2text
(e.g., pdfminer.six , pdf.js , PyMuPDF ). This extracts text runs with their exact positions, font names, and Unicode mappings. The core challenge here is mapping PDF’s ad-hoc encoding to Unicode . Many PDFs use custom or non-embedded encodings (e.g., MacRoman, WinAnsi, or a bespoke 8-bit mapping). Without ToUnicode tables, the engine must guess character mappings—a frequent source of mojibake in older or Eastern European documents. (heuristics + ML)
(ICU, HarfBuzz). For complex scripts (Devanagari, Thai, Arabic), PDFs may store precomposed glyphs (e.g., क + ् + त → क्त) or store them as separate components that must be re-ordered and ligated. A multilingual engine must reverse the shaping process. For Arabic, it must detect the base character from initial/medial/final glyph forms. For Tamil, it must reorder vowel signs that appear left or right of the consonant in print but must follow the consonant in logical Unicode. For Latin, a simple top-to-bottom, left-to-right rule works