f



How to create PDFs with a 'similar-enough' font embedded if the original document's font license does forbid embedding?

My questions follow below; here are my facts first:

0. I'm using a customer-owned MS Windows Vista notebook during calls
on-site (my own one has no permission to be plugged into the network
there) with MS Office 2007 as well as Acrobat Professional 9.1.2
installed.

1. I have gotten a Word 2007 document, composed entirely of text
formatted with a font "LucidaSans" (plus variations: *-italic, *-bold,
*-bolditalic).

2. BTW, I don't know *how* Word originally found the LucidaSans font
-- it's not by default installed in %windir%\fonts. However, it's
available in "%programfiles%\Adobe\Acrobat 9.0\Designer 8.2\jre\lib
\fonts\" as "LucidaSansRegular.ttf". It's "Version 1.20, October 2000,
OpenType Layout, TrueType outlines", according to Windows Font Viewer.
Also, the Font Viewer says "Font embeddability: Restricted". Similar
license restriction info is given about the LucidaSans-Demi and other
variations.

3. If I use Word's "Save as PDF..."-feature (which internally is using
PDFWriter), the LucidaSans *variations* are embedded as subsets, but
LucidaSans *regular* isn't.

4. If I use Distiller and "Print to Acrobat PDF" printer, the same
thing happens. Yes, I have enabled the Distiller profile to "embed all
fonts".

5. Acrobat says in "Document Properties" about the font used to
display the PDF pages: "Actual Font: Adobe Sans MM".

6. So far, not a surprise to me, that the regular fontface is not
being embedded. After all, the license hint is clear (once you
discovered it). Big surprise however is the fact that the PDFs do have
embedded the *variations* of LucidaSans (italic, bold, bolditalic
under the names of "-Italic", "-Demi" and "-DemiItalic").

7. I did try all kinds of settings to convice Distiller to embed its
"Adobe Sans MM" instead of the original LucidaSans... to no avail so
far.

8. Distiller does hint in its profile dialog for the "Fonts" settings
at the non-permission to embed LucidaSans (which it indeed does *not*
embed), LucidaSans-Demi (which it later *does* embed!) and all
LucidaBright-** variations (which I did not test).

9. For now, I found two ways to print the PDFs in a good-enough
imaging fidelity to the on-screen Acrobat display:
    a) Re-distilling the PDF with Distiller using the "Print as image"
option.
    b) Tricking Acrobat into a "convert all glyphs to outlines" mode
and save that version of the file.

10. While "9." is a workaround for now, it does not help in the long
run, because there are some other requirements: automatically
archiving all PDF files after print as searchable, indexible
documents. Both, "9a" and "9b" loose these capabilities. Yes, I know:
we could run an OCR over the files and embed the indentified glyphs as
invisible text, but...

Now my questions:

* Why t.f. do vendors ship a font at all that does not allow
embedding, and hence, does not guarantee high fidelity printing? Why
t.f., if they do this, don't they warn and nag and scare users
whenever selecting such a font during document creation, that they
will not be able to print (or share) that document smoothly? OK, these
were rhethorical questions only; here are the real ones:

* We do print this type of PDF files regularly to DirectPDF-capable
printers. How can we do this, without the printer ruining the page
images by using an undesired font substitute? (BTW, Ghostscript by
default does substitute LucidaSans with Helvetica/NimbusSanL which
does not look good at all due to some major glyph width and kerning
differences...)

* Is there a way to push Acrobat Distiller into embedding Adobe Sans
MM in place of LucidaSans?

* Is there a way to push Acrobat Distiller *at all* into substituting
fonts?!? (When I look in the "printer properties" of the Adobe PDF
printer, "Device Settings" tab, where you would normally define your
preferred font substitutions (or forbid the unwanted ones), for every
single font there are only 3 choices: "Don't substitute", "Courier"
and "Symbol". WTF?!

* Any other idea for a the general way out of this situation? Tell me
to re-create the document(s) without using LucidaSans is not what I'm
looking for. It's not an option. And I told the customer myself
already...  :-)

* Do, for example, font foundries dual-license their creations? Is
there a chance to buy a LucidaSans version from the copyright holder
which has the embedding restriction removed?!?

Thanks in advance for any new suggestions and ideas.
Cheers,
pipitas

0
pipitas (30)
3/23/2010 2:35:16 AM
comp.text.pdf 5600 articles. 0 followers. ramon (1518) is leader. Post Follow

15 Replies
1003 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 4

In article <a51bd74e-a653-4047-b7d0-
c6e6ecc00acb@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, pipitas@googlemail.com 
says...

> * We do print this type of PDF files regularly to DirectPDF-capable
> printers. How can we do this, without the printer ruining the page
> images by using an undesired font substitute? (BTW, Ghostscript by
> default does substitute LucidaSans with Helvetica/NimbusSanL which
> does not look good at all due to some major glyph width and kerning
> differences...)

Fundamentally, you can't. You should embed all fonts in the PDF file, if 
the PDF Creator warns you when creating the file that the font cannot be 
embedded, then you should check, if the font is not properly embedded 
you should select a different one and recreate it.

Currently Ghostscript uses quite a simple scheme for font substitution, 
but even a sophisticated scheme may be defeated by various printer 
drivers. This won't happen with Word and the Adobe printer driver, but 
it should be borne in mind.

 
> * Is there a way to push Acrobat Distiller into embedding Adobe Sans
> MM in place of LucidaSans?

No, and in fact Acrobat (not Distiller) is not using Adobe Sans MM in a 
simple substitution sense. 

MM means 'Multiple Master', and is a font specifically designed to be 
used to *create* a font 'similar' to the original. In the PDF file are 
various pieces of information which describe how the original font 
looked (without including said font). 

A multiple master font contains multiple designs (masters) and can be 
smoothly interpolated between these designs. This allows the font 
rendering engine to create 'on the fly' a font which is similar to the 
original. 

Of course no true type professional would be happy with this, since it 
isn't the font that was originally requested. Not only that, but this 
system can cause problems. If a corporate font is substituted with a MM 
font, it may not be noticed until too late that this has happened, 
because the font metrics are close enough. Nevertheless, the document 
won't have the correct corporate4 image. MM fonts should be used with 
care.

Its doubly important of course that the synthesised MM font is not 
embedded in the PDF file, as that would make it terribly difficutl to 
replace.

Ghostscript can do this MM font substitution too, but the facility does 
not currently come built-in and requires some effort to get to work.

 
> * Is there a way to push Acrobat Distiller *at all* into substituting
> fonts?!? (When I look in the "printer properties" of the Adobe PDF
> printer, "Device Settings" tab, where you would normally define your
> preferred font substitutions (or forbid the unwanted ones), for every
> single font there are only 3 choices: "Don't substitute", "Courier"
> and "Symbol". WTF?!

One of the original points of PDF was to allow you to send files for 
printing, and view them on screen for a comparison. In this case you 
would not want to do font substitution, you expect both creator and 
recipient to have the fonts installed.

During PDF creation is a bad time to do font substitution, you should do 
it in the original document, where you have control over the appearance.

 
> * Any other idea for a the general way out of this situation? Tell me
> to re-create the document(s) without using LucidaSans is not what I'm
> looking for. It's not an option. And I told the customer myself
> already...  :-)

OK, but now you have some more information to go back and tell him 
again. During file creation is right time to do it, and its the only 
time its going to work properly. You could also try to purchase a 
LucidaSans without embedding restrictions.

BTW the flags restricting embedding allow for several steps. Embedding 
can be restricted altogether, allowed only for subsets etc. 

One possibility is that you have the font subset percentage set low. 
When the percantage of the font required by the document crosses this 
threshold Distiller embeds the entire font, not just a subset (you need 
the whole font for editing). Its possible that the embedding flags 
permit embedding a subset but not the entire font. In this case you 
*may* be able to persuade Distiller to subset the LucidaSans Regular 
font instead of embedding the entire font, and this may be permitted 
under the restrictions, so it might work. Maybe.
 

> * Do, for example, font foundries dual-license their creations? Is
> there a chance to buy a LucidaSans version from the copyright holder
> which has the embedding restriction removed?!?

Can be the case, yes. Fonts shipped free with applications might have 
restrictions which may not be present in a fully purchased copy of the 
font.

Note also that PostScript versions of fonts do not have font embedding 
flags, so this restriction does not apply. So it would be possible to 
purchase a PostScript LucidaSans, add it to the Distiller list of fonts 
(removing the TrueType version for the font list) and this should work.

			Ken
0
ken
3/23/2010 8:10:36 AM
Thank you, Ken, for your thorough answer.

On Mar 23, 9:10 am, ken <k...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> In article <a51bd74e-a653-4047-b7d0-
> c6e6ecc00...@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, pipi...@googlemail.com
> says...
>
> > * We do print this type of PDF files regularly to DirectPDF-capable
> > printers. How can we do this, without the printer ruining the page
> > images by using an undesired font substitute? (BTW, Ghostscript by
> > default does substitute LucidaSans with Helvetica/NimbusSanL which
> > does not look good at all due to some major glyph width and kerning
> > differences...)
>
> Fundamentally, you can't. You should embed all fonts in the PDF file, if
> the PDF Creator warns you when creating the file that the font cannot be
> embedded, then you should check, if the font is not properly embedded
> you should select a different one and recreate it.

Yes, I'm largely aware of these fundamental "rules of the trade".

> > * Is there a way to push Acrobat Distiller into embedding Adobe Sans
> > MM in place of LucidaSans?
>
> No, and in fact Acrobat (not Distiller) is not using Adobe Sans MM in a
> simple substitution sense.

However, Acrobat *does* use it for *displaying* the file on screen.
So
it seems to be aware, somehow, that the original font is not kosher.
And it is, in my book, font substitution by Acrobat: even for the
purpose of on-screen representation.

On the other hand, Acrobat (as well as Distiller) does leave the user
high and dry when it comes to printing. Then, it does not substitute
the font at all.

Remember, this is the situation:

* one and the same notebook with installations of Word 2007, Acrobat
Pro 9.1.2 including Distiller, and the LucidaSans font installed

* a Word 2007 document using LucidaSans

* neither PDFWriter nor Distiller creating a PDF that is fit for
handing over to a third party printing service provider.

* Acrobat faking the original font with its built-in MM fonts just
for on-screen, but not for printing (and not warning about the font
problem when printing to file, printing to printer, or printing to
PDF [=3Dredistilling].

> MM means 'Multiple Master', and is a font specifically designed to be
> used to *create* a font 'similar' to the original. In the PDF file are
> various pieces of information which describe how the original font
> looked (without including said font).
>
> A multiple master font contains multiple designs (masters) and can be
> smoothly interpolated between these designs. This allows the font
> rendering engine to create 'on the fly' a font which is similar to the
> original.

Thanks for this comprehensive description of what MM fonts are.
It confirms what I did already half-know, half-assume.

> Of course no true type professional would be happy with this, since it
> isn't the font that was originally requested. Not only that, but this
> system can cause problems. If a corporate font is substituted with a MM
> font, it may not be noticed until too late that this has happened,
> because the font metrics are close enough.

In our case, "close enough" would make us "happy enough". (As you
also can see from the $subject wording I did choose for my original
posting...).

> Nevertheless, the document
> won't have the correct corporate4 image. MM fonts should be used with
> care.
>
> Its doubly important of course that the synthesised MM font is not
> embedded in the PDF file, as that would make it terribly difficutl to
> replace.

In our case, it's basically 1 minute before the end of life for that
PDFs in question, and 10 minutes before needing to meet a printout
deadline. The "end of life" of the PDFs for now means printing (well,
later, early next year maybe, there may come an addon to this project
which will want to archive those PDFs for eternity).

Therefor, for now we would already be "happy enough" if we could con-
vince Acrobat/Distiller to embed the MM fonts in place of the origi-
nal ones. If we don't, then the printers (which, by chance, have
Adobe
RIPs installed) use Helvetica, and that does look (for *these* files)
like  ~#?&%$=A7*.

> Ghostscript can do this MM font substitution too, but the facility does
> not currently come built-in and requires some effort to get to work:

Is there any documentation (even if incomplete, half-wrong or badly
written), somewhere, to draw inspiration from? (I'd be willing to
make
it top-notch in the process of getting this to work, if I can have a
starting point for that exploration...)

> > * Is there a way to push Acrobat Distiller *at all* into substituting
> > fonts?!? (When I look in the "printer properties" of the Adobe PDF
> > printer, "Device Settings" tab, where you would normally define your
> > preferred font substitutions (or forbid the unwanted ones), for every
> > single font there are only 3 choices: "Don't substitute", "Courier"
> > and "Symbol". WTF?!
>
> One of the original points of PDF was to allow you to send files for
> printing, and view them on screen for a comparison. In this case you
> would not want to do font substitution,

Yes, I do! I *do* want it in this situation!! But I do want this to
happen under *my* control, with a replacement font *I* did approve.
Because it leaves me with no choice: if I don't find a way to do it,
the printer will do it, and the replacement it makes I definitely
do *dis*-approve!

> you expect both creator and
> recipient to have the fonts installed.

Which does not help in this situation. The font does not let itself
embed into the file, neither by re-distilling, nor by preflighting
with callas' pdfToolbox4. The file is PDF. The PDFs are printed to a
PDFDirect-capable printer.

My extensively described situation is an artificial one: having the
Word 2007 source available, having Distiller 9.1.2, having the font
in question, all on one and the same PC.

I did set up this environment, because wanted to come up with a
written
step-by-step instruction for our customer's customers how they could
create PDFs with *their* choice of font which would print on our
customer's printers in a kind of WYSISWYG way. So far, I failed.
Miserably.

It simply seems impossible to achieve.

Our real situation is that we also get to deal with short-term
creations by new customers. Here the only file that we have in
hand is the PDF as is. And there will be tight deadlines looming
for the respective printouts to be completed.

> During PDF creation is a bad time to do font substitution, you should do
> it in the original document, where you have control over the appearance.

That's OK in an ideal work situation. In the real world, I have to
deal with a problem like the one in question. Now.

> > * Any other idea for a the general way out of this situation? Tell me
> > to re-create the document(s) without using LucidaSans is not what I'm
> > looking for. It's not an option. And I told the customer myself
> > already...  :-)
>
> OK, but now you have some more information to go back and tell him
> again.

Sure I will.   :-)

And he'll have to tell his own customers.

But meanwhile, we need to get the best-possible, best-looking
printouts
from PDFs which were not created in an ideal world   :-)

And in the next 10 years, every week a new customer will pop up from
out of nowhere who has never heard of font embedding and font
licensing
problems...   :-(

> During file creation is right time to do it, and its the only
> time its going to work properly. You could also try to purchase a
> LucidaSans without embedding restrictions.

This is now one direction to persue. Thanks for the confirmation.

> BTW the flags restricting embedding allow for several steps. Embedding
> can be restricted altogether, allowed only for subsets etc.

I tried a setting in Distiller that should enable subsetting. It
didn't do it for the current font in question. (There may other
fonts with similar problems pop up in the future, which may be-
have a bit differently in that respect.)

> One possibility is that you have the font subset percentage set low.
> When the percantage of the font required by the document crosses this
> threshold Distiller embeds the entire font, not just a subset (you need
> the whole font for editing). Its possible that the embedding flags
> permit embedding a subset but not the entire font. In this case you
> *may* be able to persuade Distiller to subset the LucidaSans Regular
> font instead of embedding the entire font, and this may be permitted
> under the restrictions, so it might work. Maybe.
>
> > * Do, for example, font foundries dual-license their creations? Is
> > there a chance to buy a LucidaSans version from the copyright holder
> > which has the embedding restriction removed?!?
>
> Can be the case, yes. Fonts shipped free with applications might have
> restrictions which may not be present in a fully purchased copy of the
> font.
>
> Note also that PostScript versions of fonts do not have font embedding
> flags, so this restriction does not apply. So it would be possible to
> purchase a PostScript LucidaSans, add it to the Distiller list of fonts
> (removing the TrueType version for the font list) and this should work.

I'll also try yet another option: hack myself into the printer RIP
and add the Windows TT LucidaSans font to its pool of fonts. Maybe
it then utilizes the font for printing-to-paper. (However, I'm not
overly optimistic: I tried to get Win32 Ghostscript 8.71 to use a
LucidaSans for outputting to the tiffg4 device by adding a
-I/path/to/lucidasanttf-dir commandline param, but it didn't work...)

Thanks again, Ken, for taking the time to respond so thoroughly. I do
appreciate it very much.

Cheers,
pipitas

0
pipitas
3/23/2010 9:50:50 AM
In article <8a0b6636-51fe-4491-b128-
6717350096ba@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, pipitas@googlemail.com 
says...

> Thank you, Ken, for your thorough answer.

Its always hard to know where to pitch an answer on UseNet, neither too 
complex to baffle the poster, nor too simple to insult intelligence. 
Also many other people read these posts, and can pixk up some funny 
ideas if you aren't clear. 

So I apologise for the lecturing tone, I know you knwo this stuff (you 
did say so) but I don't want to leave room for confusion....


> > No, and in fact Acrobat (not Distiller) is not using Adobe Sans MM in a
> > simple substitution sense.
> 
> However, Acrobat *does* use it for *displaying* the file on screen.
> So
> it seems to be aware, somehow, that the original font is not kosher.

That's easy, the Font object in the PDF file has no FontFile stream. So 
any PDF consumer knows the font isn't embedded. What they choose to do 
about it isn't defined in the PDF Reference.


> And it is, in my book, font substitution by Acrobat: even for the
> purpose of on-screen representation.

Yes, just being clear that its not Distiller in this case.

  
> > Ghostscript can do this MM font substitution too, but the facility does
> > not currently come built-in and requires some effort to get to work:
> 
> Is there any documentation (even if incomplete, half-wrong or badly
> written), somewhere, to draw inspiration from? (I'd be willing to
> make
> it top-notch in the process of getting this to work, if I can have a
> starting point for that exploration...)

I'm afraid I don't thnk so. In fact I don;t think the MM fonts are 
actually shipped with GS currently. I'm also unsure whether the Artifex 
licence for these fonts would allow shipment with the GPL version of 
Ghostscript.


> > One of the original points of PDF was to allow you to send files for
> > printing, and view them on screen for a comparison. In this case you
> > would not want to do font substitution,
> 
> Yes, I do! I *do* want it in this situation!! But I do want this to
> happen under *my* control, with a replacement font *I* did approve.
> Because it leaves me with no choice: if I don't find a way to do it,
> the printer will do it, and the replacement it makes I definitely
> do *dis*-approve!

Which is why substitution on-screen with a 'nearly good enough' font is 
a Bad Idea :-)

I know it works in your case, but in other cases it wouldn't.


> Which does not help in this situation. The font does not let itself
> embed into the file, neither by re-distilling, nor by preflighting
> with callas' pdfToolbox4. The file is PDF. The PDFs are printed to a
> PDFDirect-capable printer.

Which, obviously, doens't have LucidaSans installed, if it did then it 
wouldn't be a problem.


> I did set up this environment, because wanted to come up with a
> written
> step-by-step instruction for our customer's customers how they could
> create PDFs with *their* choice of font which would print on our
> customer's printers in a kind of WYSISWYG way. So far, I failed.
> Miserably.

So its not just LucidaSans ? There isn't any way with most PDF consumers 
to define the substitute font for a given family/font. You can do this 
with Ghostscript, I don't know if that would help or not.


> But meanwhile, we need to get the best-possible, best-looking
> printouts
> from PDFs which were not created in an ideal world   :-)

Its a common problem, educating customers as to why their output looks 
like s**t and why its their fault, without offending them, is a common 
theme in comp.publish.prepress.


> > During file creation is right time to do it, and its the only
> > time its going to work properly. You could also try to purchase a
> > LucidaSans without embedding restrictions.
> 
> This is now one direction to persue. Thanks for the confirmation.

Loading a version of the font on the printer is one solution to all 
embedding problems, but its not always practical and works out 
expensive.

 
> > BTW the flags restricting embedding allow for several steps. Embedding
> > can be restricted altogether, allowed only for subsets etc.
> 
> I tried a setting in Distiller that should enable subsetting. It
> didn't do it for the current font in question. (There may other
> fonts with similar problems pop up in the future, which may be-
> have a bit differently in that respect.)

Which setting did you change ? There are several...

I'd suggest setting 'Subset embedded fotns when percent of characters 
used is less than' and setting it to 100%. That should embed every font 
which its possible to embed.


> > Note also that PostScript versions of fonts do not have font embedding
> > flags, so this restriction does not apply. So it would be possible to
> > purchase a PostScript LucidaSans, add it to the Distiller list of fonts
> > (removing the TrueType version for the font list) and this should work.
> 
> I'll also try yet another option: hack myself into the printer RIP
> and add the Windows TT LucidaSans font to its pool of fonts. 

Rips often can't use TrueType fonts directly, though if it can handle 
PDF its probably OK. However, it can sometimes require use of pritner-
specific extensions. If you cna find a TT font already on the RIP then 
you could use it as a template. Simply putting the font on the pritner 
hard disk probably won't be enough.

> Maybe
> it then utilizes the font for printing-to-paper. (However, I'm not
> overly optimistic: I tried to get Win32 Ghostscript 8.71 to use a
> LucidaSans for outputting to the tiffg4 device by adding a
> -I/path/to/lucidasanttf-dir commandline param, but it didn't work...)

You can get GS to use the font, you need to add it to Ghostscript's font 
map. -I just adds a path to a font directory, it doesn't add the font.

Mostly I do this with Far Eastern TT fonts, so I'[m a bit hazy on the 
details for Latin fonts. 
0
ken
3/23/2010 4:54:15 PM
In article <MPG.261300571242932c9897c0@usenet.plus.net>, ken@spamcop.net 
says...
 
> You can get GS to use the font, you need to add it to Ghostscript's font 
> map. -I just adds a path to a font directory, it doesn't add the font.
> 
> Mostly I do this with Far Eastern TT fonts, so I'[m a bit hazy on the 
> details for Latin fonts. 

Sorry, network problems caused that message to be truncated.

In order to use a custom Fontmap.GS you need to tell GS where to find 
it. Use the -I switch for that. You then need to edit the Fontmap.GS 
file. I added this line:

/LucidaSansRegular	(/windows/fonts/lsans.ttf) ;

to my copy and was able to use the font. Note that you will need to set 
the PostScript name (the bit after the '/') to whatever is in your PDF 
files.

Be aware that this still won't produce a PDF file with the font 
embedded, because Ghostscript honours those flags as well, when 
producing a PDF file.


However, I find that the font is embedded when I try this here, which 
suggests there is no restriction on the version of Lucida I am using.

			Ken
0
ken
3/23/2010 5:20:11 PM
On Mar 23, 5:54 pm, ken <k...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> In article <8a0b6636-51fe-4491-b128-
> 671735009...@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, pipi...@googlemail.com
> says...
>
> > Thank you, Ken, for your thorough answer.
>
> Its always hard to know where to pitch an answer on UseNet, neither too
> complex to baffle the poster, nor too simple to insult intelligence.
> Also many other people read these posts, and can pixk up some funny
> ideas if you aren't clear.

Right. And exactly that's the reason I like this type of responses to
questions: they can be useful to dozens of other people for years to
come.   :-)

I've already learned quite a bit of what I know now by just silently
reading (since years ago) answers you gave to others on all kinds of
questions.

> So I apologise for the lecturing tone,

No need at all to do so. I *really* do appreciate your effort. It's a
privilege to be lectured by a master...   :-)

[...]
> > > Ghostscript can do this MM font substitution too, but the facility does
> > > not currently come built-in and requires some effort to get to work:
>
> > Is there any documentation (even if incomplete, half-wrong or badly
> > written), somewhere, to draw inspiration from? (I'd be willing to
> > make
> > it top-notch in the process of getting this to work, if I can have a
> > starting point for that exploration...)
>
> I'm afraid I don't thnk so. In fact I don;t think the MM fonts are
> actually shipped with GS currently.

Does that mean it would not work with Adobe's Sans and Serif MM fonts?
That Ghostscript would need to use its own MM fonts?

> I'm also unsure whether the Artifex
> licence for these fonts would allow shipment with the GPL version of
> Ghostscript.

It's not a problem for me to send them an email asking for a quote
about the font license (plus the commercial license of Ghostscript, if
it is required to get the fonts to work :-)   ).

> > > One of the original points of PDF was to allow you to send files for
> > > printing, and view them on screen for a comparison. In this case you
> > > would not want to do font substitution,
>
> > Yes, I do! I *do* want it in this situation!! But I do want this to
> > happen under *my* control, with a replacement font *I* did approve.
> > Because it leaves me with no choice: if I don't find a way to do it,
> > the printer will do it, and the replacement it makes I definitely
> > do *dis*-approve!
>
> Which is why substitution on-screen with a 'nearly good enough' font is
> a Bad Idea :-)

It's only *that* bad because it fools the user to *think* he can als
print like that. It wouldn't be too bad, if at least there were a way
to let me choose "now use the same font for printing -- embed it! --
because I already know this file will not work otherwise".

> I know it works in your case, but in other cases it wouldn't.
>
> > Which does not help in this situation. The font does not let itself
> > embed into the file, neither by re-distilling, nor by preflighting
> > with callas' pdfToolbox4. The file is PDF. The PDFs are printed to a
> > PDFDirect-capable printer.
>
> Which, obviously, doens't have LucidaSans installed, if it did then it
> wouldn't be a problem.

Right. I wonder which printers do have it installed though. Need to
check some PPDs of some Level 3 printers and do some printouts of
their font pages.

> > I did set up this environment, because wanted to come up with a
> > written
> > step-by-step instruction for our customer's customers how they could
> > create PDFs with *their* choice of font which would print on our
> > customer's printers in a kind of WYSISWYG way. So far, I failed.
> > Miserably.
>
> So its not just LucidaSans ?

For now it's LucidaSans. But I expect to come across similar problems
with (maybe) some "corporate identity" fonts used by fortune 500
companies (which has become quite fashionable in the last 10
years)....

> There isn't any way with most PDF consumers
> to define the substitute font for a given family/font. You can do this
> with Ghostscript, I don't know if that would help or not.

It does definitely help knowing how to do that with ghostscript. I
assume it involves editing and maintaining a Fontmap table file?

[...]

> > I tried a setting in Distiller that should enable subsetting. It
> > didn't do it for the current font in question. (There may other
> > fonts with similar problems pop up in the future, which may be-
> > have a bit differently in that respect.)
>
> Which setting did you change ? There are several...
>
> I'd suggest setting 'Subset embedded fotns when percent of characters
> used is less than' and setting it to 100%. That should embed every font
> which its possible to embed

That's one of the things I tried. It's my default setup for Distiller
on Windows anyway.

> > > Note also that PostScript versions of fonts do not have font embedding
> > > flags, so this restriction does not apply. So it would be possible to
> > > purchase a PostScript LucidaSans, add it to the Distiller list of fonts
> > > (removing the TrueType version for the font list) and this should work.
>
> > I'll also try yet another option: hack myself into the printer RIP
> > and add the Windows TT LucidaSans font to its pool of fonts.
>
> Rips often can't use TrueType fonts directly,

This one can.

> though if it can handle
> PDF its probably OK.

Yes, it handles PDF too.

> However, it can sometimes require use of pritner-
> specific extensions.

Here is were unexplored land starts...

> If you cna find a TT font already on the RIP then
> you could use it as a template. Simply putting the font on the pritner
> hard disk probably won't be enough.

I assume so, yes. Looking to get some more specific info from the
vendor
now..

> > Maybe
> > it then utilizes the font for printing-to-paper. (However, I'm not
> > overly optimistic: I tried to get Win32 Ghostscript 8.71 to use a
> > LucidaSans for outputting to the tiffg4 device by adding a
> > -I/path/to/lucidasanttf-dir commandline param, but it didn't work...)
>
> You can get GS to use the font, you need to add it to Ghostscript's font
> map. -I just adds a path to a font directory, it doesn't add the font.

Aahh... the Fontmap table.      ( /me vaguely remembers having seen
that before...)

> Mostly I do this with Far Eastern TT fonts, so I'[m a bit hazy on the
> details for Latin fonts.

Cheers and thanks again, Ken!
Bye,
pipitas
0
pipitas
3/23/2010 10:13:17 PM
On Mar 23, 6:20=A0pm, ken <k...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> In article <MPG.261300571242932c989...@usenet.plus.net>, k...@spamcop.net
> says...

[....]
> Sorry, network problems caused that message to be truncated.
>
> In order to use a custom Fontmap.GS you need to tell GS where to find
> it. Use the -I switch for that.

Ahhhh.. so it does not suffice to use

   "-I/path/to/a/dir/with/fonts;/second/path;/third/one"

?? I seem to remember that some time ago I succeeded with that thing
only to make gswin32c pick up some font from the %windir%/fonts
directory (which it wouldn't do without).

Anyway, this is a very, very useful hint. Probably I did overread that
in the GS documentation (or I forgot again).

> You then need to edit the Fontmap.GS
> file. I added this line:
>
> /LucidaSansRegular =A0 =A0 =A0(/windows/fonts/lsans.ttf) ;
>
> to my copy and was able to use the font. Note that you will need to set
> the PostScript name (the bit after the '/') to whatever is in your PDF
> files.

Thanks a lot for this piece of info. I remember now: you also do
define alias font names in that file, right? And that mechanism can
also be used to define font substitutions, right?  (I don't have GS
around here, but tomorrow morning I'll read the Fontmap.GS comments.
First thing, before coffee even.... :-)

> Be aware that this still won't produce a PDF file with the font
> embedded, because Ghostscript honours those flags as well, when
> producing a PDF file.

I could design a special case handling for this type of files with
fonts disallowing embedding. Because the printer does also handle
single-page TIFF and multipage TIFF files. That means I could use
"gswin32c -sDEVICE=3Dtiffg4 -rYYYxYYY ..." to create hi-res TIFFs and
send those to the printer....   :-)

> However, I find that the font is embedded when I try this here, which
> suggests there is no restriction on the version of Lucida I am using.

OK, there is light at the end of the tunnel now, thanks to you. :-)

Now I have various options to explore on behalf of and suggesting to
the customer which will keep me busy for quite a few hours:

* finding a LucidaSans variant that allows embedding (if be, buying a
special license from Bigelow & Holmes Inc);
* getting a quote from Artifex about Ghostscript with MM fonts to be
embedded as a substitute;
* using GPL Ghostscript to "print to TIFF" with the original font;
* hacking the printer, install the font in question there and get it
to be used for rendering the pages...

....always keeping in mind if the finally picked solution is "good
enough" visual-wise, easy to deploy and maintain, extensible to other
Fonts with potentially similar problems coming up (and, not to forget,
"within the bugdet"...)

Cheers,
Kurt
0
pipitas
3/23/2010 10:34:36 PM
On Mar 23, 11:34=A0pm, pipitas <pipi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 6:20=A0pm, ken <k...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <MPG.261300571242932c989...@usenet.plus.net>, k...@spamcop.n=
et
> > says...
>
> [....]
>
> > Sorry, network problems caused that message to be truncated.
>
> > In order to use a custom Fontmap.GS you need to tell GS where to find
> > it. Use the -I switch for that.
>
> Ahhhh.. so it does not suffice to use
>
> =A0 =A0"-I/path/to/a/dir/with/fonts;/second/path;/third/one"
>
> ?? I seem to remember that some time ago I succeeded with that thing
> only to make gswin32c pick up some font from the %windir%/fonts
> directory (which it wouldn't do without).
>
> Anyway, this is a very, very useful hint. Probably I did overread that
> in the GS documentation (or I forgot again).
>
> > You then need to edit the Fontmap.GS
> > file. I added this line:
>
> > /LucidaSansRegular =A0 =A0 =A0(/windows/fonts/lsans.ttf) ;
>
> > to my copy and was able to use the font. Note that you will need to set
> > the PostScript name (the bit after the '/') to whatever is in your PDF
> > files.
>
> Thanks a lot for this piece of info. I remember now: you also do
> define alias font names in that file, right? And that mechanism can
> also be used to define font substitutions, right? =A0(I don't have GS
> around here, but tomorrow morning I'll read the Fontmap.GS comments.
> First thing, before coffee even.... :-)
>
> > Be aware that this still won't produce a PDF file with the font
> > embedded, because Ghostscript honours those flags as well, when
> > producing a PDF file.
>
> I could design a special case handling for this type of files with
> fonts disallowing embedding. Because the printer does also handle
> single-page TIFF and multipage TIFF files. That means I could use
> "gswin32c -sDEVICE=3Dtiffg4 -rYYYxYYY ..." to create hi-res TIFFs and
> send those to the printer.... =A0 :-)
>
> > However, I find that the font is embedded when I try this here, which
> > suggests there is no restriction on the version of Lucida I am using.
>
> OK, there is light at the end of the tunnel now, thanks to you. :-)
>
> Now I have various options to explore on behalf of and suggesting to
> the customer which will keep me busy for quite a few hours:
>
> * finding a LucidaSans variant that allows embedding (if be, buying a
> special license from Bigelow & Holmes Inc);
> * getting a quote from Artifex about Ghostscript with MM fonts to be
> embedded as a substitute;
> * using GPL Ghostscript to "print to TIFF" with the original font;
> * hacking the printer, install the font in question there and get it
> to be used for rendering the pages...
>
> ...always keeping in mind if the finally picked solution is "good
> enough" visual-wise, easy to deploy and maintain, extensible to other
> Fonts with potentially similar problems coming up (and, not to forget,
> "within the bugdet"...)
>
> Cheers,
> Kurt


OK, some news: *my* GS on *my* Windows does not like to embed *my*
LucidaSans....

I did remote-access the system (couldn't wait for the next moring),
added the lines to Fontmap.GS, and now can see that Ghostscript *does*
try to pickup and load the LucidaSans font. Before, it did substitute
with Helvetica immediately Now it picks up LucidaSans first, but then
nevertheless decides to substitute it  (I know, I should try it with
the latest version of GS too):

----
C:\> gswin32c -Ic:/pa/gs/gs8.62/lib;c:/pa/gs/fonts;c:/windows/fonts \
 -sDEVICE=3Dnullpage \
 -dBATCH -dNOPAUSE \
 C:\projects\scheiss-pdfs-beratungsresistenter-kunden\LucidaSans-
problem\Vorsicht-vor-LucidaSans.docx-saved-as-PDF-with-PDFWriter.pdf
GPL Ghostscript 8.62 (2008-02-29)
Copyright (C) 2008 Artifex Software, Inc.  All rights reserved.
This software comes with NO WARRANTY: see the file PUBLIC for details.
Processing pages 1 through 4.
Page 1
Loading LucidaSans font from C:/Program Files/Adobe/Acrobat 9.0/
Designer 8.2/jre/lib/fonts/LucidaSansRegular.ttf... 2792632 1285053
6333064 5024218 3 done.
Substituting font Helvetica for LucidaSans.
Loading NimbusSanL-Regu font from c:/pa/gs/fonts/n019003l.pfb...
2809320 1370406 6333064 5025381 3 done.
Page 2
Loading LucidaSans font from C:/Program Files/Adobe/Acrobat 9.0/
Designer 8.2/jre/lib/fonts/LucidaSansRegular.ttf... 3042744 1624703
6393352 5032182 3 done.
Substituting font Helvetica for LucidaSans.
Page 3
Loading LucidaSans font from C:/Program Files/Adobe/Acrobat 9.0/
Designer 8.2/jre/lib/fonts/LucidaSansRegular.ttf... 3408112 1996750
6418236 5039506 3 done.
Substituting font Helvetica for LucidaSans.
Page 4
Loading LucidaSans font from C:/Program Files/Adobe/Acrobat 9.0/
Designer 8.2/jre/lib/fonts/LucidaSansRegular.ttf... 2812984 1231764
6398140 5039428 3 done.
Substituting font Helvetica for LucidaSans.

My Fontmap.GS line is this, escaping the blanks in the Windows path
(all on one line, regardless what Googlemail makes from this:

/LucidaSans  (/Program\ Files/Adobe/Acrobat\ 9.0/Designer\ 8.2/jre/lib/
fonts/LucidaSansRegular.ttf) ;


Cheers,
pipitas
0
pipitas
3/23/2010 11:18:21 PM
On Mar 24, 12:18=A0am, pipitas <pipi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 11:34=A0pm, pipitas <pipi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 6:20=A0pm, ken <k...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > > In article <MPG.261300571242932c989...@usenet.plus.net>, k...@spamcop=
..net
> > > says...
>
> > [....]
>
> > > Sorry, network problems caused that message to be truncated.
>
> > > In order to use a custom Fontmap.GS you need to tell GS where to find
> > > it. Use the -I switch for that.
>
> > Ahhhh.. so it does not suffice to use
>
> > =A0 =A0"-I/path/to/a/dir/with/fonts;/second/path;/third/one"
>
> > ?? I seem to remember that some time ago I succeeded with that thing
> > only to make gswin32c pick up some font from the %windir%/fonts
> > directory (which it wouldn't do without).
>
> > Anyway, this is a very, very useful hint. Probably I did overread that
> > in the GS documentation (or I forgot again).
>
> > > You then need to edit the Fontmap.GS
> > > file. I added this line:
>
> > > /LucidaSansRegular =A0 =A0 =A0(/windows/fonts/lsans.ttf) ;
>
> > > to my copy and was able to use the font. Note that you will need to s=
et
> > > the PostScript name (the bit after the '/') to whatever is in your PD=
F
> > > files.
>
> > Thanks a lot for this piece of info. I remember now: you also do
> > define alias font names in that file, right? And that mechanism can
> > also be used to define font substitutions, right? =A0(I don't have GS
> > around here, but tomorrow morning I'll read the Fontmap.GS comments.
> > First thing, before coffee even.... :-)
>
> > > Be aware that this still won't produce a PDF file with the font
> > > embedded, because Ghostscript honours those flags as well, when
> > > producing a PDF file.
>
> > I could design a special case handling for this type of files with
> > fonts disallowing embedding. Because the printer does also handle
> > single-page TIFF and multipage TIFF files. That means I could use
> > "gswin32c -sDEVICE=3Dtiffg4 -rYYYxYYY ..." to create hi-res TIFFs and
> > send those to the printer.... =A0 :-)
>
> > > However, I find that the font is embedded when I try this here, which
> > > suggests there is no restriction on the version of Lucida I am using.
>
> > OK, there is light at the end of the tunnel now, thanks to you. :-)
>
> > Now I have various options to explore on behalf of and suggesting to
> > the customer which will keep me busy for quite a few hours:
>
> > * finding a LucidaSans variant that allows embedding (if be, buying a
> > special license from Bigelow & Holmes Inc);
> > * getting a quote from Artifex about Ghostscript with MM fonts to be
> > embedded as a substitute;
> > * using GPL Ghostscript to "print to TIFF" with the original font;
> > * hacking the printer, install the font in question there and get it
> > to be used for rendering the pages...
>
> > ...always keeping in mind if the finally picked solution is "good
> > enough" visual-wise, easy to deploy and maintain, extensible to other
> > Fonts with potentially similar problems coming up (and, not to forget,
> > "within the bugdet"...)
>
> > Cheers,
> > Kurt
>
> OK, some news: *my* GS on *my* Windows does not like to embed *my*
> LucidaSans....
>
> I did remote-access the system (couldn't wait for the next moring),
> added the lines to Fontmap.GS, and now can see that Ghostscript *does*
> try to pickup and load the LucidaSans font. Before, it did substitute
> with Helvetica immediately Now it picks up LucidaSans first, but then
> nevertheless decides to substitute it =A0(I know, I should try it with
> the latest version of GS too):
>
> ----
> C:\> gswin32c -Ic:/pa/gs/gs8.62/lib;c:/pa/gs/fonts;c:/windows/fonts \
> =A0-sDEVICE=3Dnullpage \
> =A0-dBATCH -dNOPAUSE \
> =A0C:\projects\scheiss-pdfs-beratungsresistenter-kunden\LucidaSans-
> problem\Vorsicht-vor-LucidaSans.docx-saved-as-PDF-with-PDFWriter.pdf
> GPL Ghostscript 8.62 (2008-02-29)
> Copyright (C) 2008 Artifex Software, Inc. =A0All rights reserved.
> This software comes with NO WARRANTY: see the file PUBLIC for details.
> Processing pages 1 through 4.
> Page 1
> Loading LucidaSans font from C:/Program Files/Adobe/Acrobat 9.0/
> Designer 8.2/jre/lib/fonts/LucidaSansRegular.ttf... 2792632 1285053
> 6333064 5024218 3 done.
> Substituting font Helvetica for LucidaSans.
> Loading NimbusSanL-Regu font from c:/pa/gs/fonts/n019003l.pfb...
> 2809320 1370406 6333064 5025381 3 done.
> Page 2
> Loading LucidaSans font from C:/Program Files/Adobe/Acrobat 9.0/
> Designer 8.2/jre/lib/fonts/LucidaSansRegular.ttf... 3042744 1624703
> 6393352 5032182 3 done.
> Substituting font Helvetica for LucidaSans.
> Page 3
> Loading LucidaSans font from C:/Program Files/Adobe/Acrobat 9.0/
> Designer 8.2/jre/lib/fonts/LucidaSansRegular.ttf... 3408112 1996750
> 6418236 5039506 3 done.
> Substituting font Helvetica for LucidaSans.
> Page 4
> Loading LucidaSans font from C:/Program Files/Adobe/Acrobat 9.0/
> Designer 8.2/jre/lib/fonts/LucidaSansRegular.ttf... 2812984 1231764
> 6398140 5039428 3 done.
> Substituting font Helvetica for LucidaSans.
>
> My Fontmap.GS line is this, escaping the blanks in the Windows path
> (all on one line, regardless what Googlemail makes from this:
>
> /LucidaSans =A0(/Program\ Files/Adobe/Acrobat\ 9.0/Designer\ 8.2/jre/lib/
> fonts/LucidaSansRegular.ttf) ;
>
> Cheers,
> pipitas- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


I added a "-dTTFDEBUG" switch to the commandline. Still don't get an
idea as to why Ghostscript loads, but does not use the LucidaSans
fontfille but still substitues by Helvetica. I do not see any license
problem reference. The last few lines of a loooooong output are these:

----
[....]
findname: 6 =3D (LucidaSans)
findname: 0 =3D (Copyright \(c\) 1999 by Bigelow & Holmes Inc. Pat. Des.
289,420.)
findname: 1 =3D (Lucida Sans)
findname: 4 =3D (Lucida Sans Regular)
findname: 5 =3D (Version 1.20 - October 2000)
OS/2 220 86
cmap 306 2868
glyf 3174 499166
head 502340 54
hhea 502394 36
hmtx 502430 11716
loca 514146 11720
maxp 525866 32
name 525898 1054
post 526952 42265
cvt  569218 1762
fpgm 570980 2030
prep 573010 3548
[220 86 2868 32636 32580 32522 32286 32562 32434 32720 32704 32748
32764 32478 32660 32428 32258 32646 10740 54 36 11716 11720 32 1054
42266 1762 2030 3548]
/FontMatrix
[1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0]
/FontBBox
[-0.622558594 -0.738769531 1.64111328 1.17285156]
/FontName
(LucidaSans)
/FontInfo
-dict-
/XUID
[107 42 -2147483647]
numloca=3D2929
2792432 1270780 6312968 5005334 3 done.
Substituting font Helvetica for LucidaSans.
Loading NimbusSanL-Regu font from c:/pa/gs/fonts/n019003l.pfb...
2809120 1356133 6312968 5006497 3 done.
0
pipitas
3/23/2010 11:33:54 PM
In article <a1a92400-0dff-4cc9-a783-8a36b857e338
@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>, pipitas@googlemail.com says...

> > I'm afraid I don't thnk so. In fact I don;t think the MM fonts are
> > actually shipped with GS currently.
> 
> Does that mean it would not work with Adobe's Sans and Serif MM fonts?
> That Ghostscript would need to use its own MM fonts?

Oh no, GS can use MM fonts already, I just don't think we actually ship 
any at the moment. 

Also the MM substitution project seems to have stalled, I meant to ask 
about it at the last staff meeting and forgot (there were already 45 
items on the agenda...)

> > Which, obviously, doens't have LucidaSans installed, if it did then it
> > wouldn't be a problem.
> 
> Right. I wonder which printers do have it installed though. Need to
> check some PPDs of some Level 3 printers and do some printouts of
> their font pages.

I doubt any do to be honest, its not part of either the LL2 or LL3 font 
set I don't think.


> > There isn't any way with most PDF consumers
> > to define the substitute font for a given family/font. You can do this
> > with Ghostscript, I don't know if that would help or not.
> 
> It does definitely help knowing how to do that with ghostscript. I
> assume it involves editing and maintaining a Fontmap table file?

Sort of. You can define the name if the 'desired' font in Fontmap.GS and 
associate it with a 'real' font there. Then the file will be printed 
using the substitute instead.

Warning! If you do this when creating a PDF file, the resulting PDF will 
contain the outlines of the substitute font, but the name of the 
original font. This means that even if you print the PDF on a printer 
with the original font, you will always get the outlines from teh 
substituted font.



			Ken
0
ken
3/24/2010 8:52:18 AM
In article <25c0a52b-2fc4-4634-a492-
abe9dc36497d@e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, pipitas@googlemail.com=20
says...

> > In order to use a custom Fontmap.GS you need to tell GS where to find
> > it. Use the -I switch for that.
>=20
> Ahhhh.. so it does not suffice to use
>=20
>    "-I/path/to/a/dir/with/fonts;/second/path;/third/one"

I'm a bit in the dark about that, but in general I think not.


> > You then need to edit the Fontmap.GS
> > file. I added this line:
> >
> > /LucidaSansRegular =A0 =A0 =A0(/windows/fonts/lsans.ttf) ;
> >
> > to my copy and was able to use the font. Note that you will need to set
> > the PostScript name (the bit after the '/') to whatever is in your PDF
> > files.
>=20
> Thanks a lot for this piece of info. I remember now: you also do
> define alias font names in that file, right?

Yes, quite correct, so you can substitute an installed font in place of=20
a missing font ehre as well, as long as you know the name of the missing=20
font, and a decent substitute for it.


> I could design a special case handling for this type of files with
> fonts disallowing embedding. Because the printer does also handle
> single-page TIFF and multipage TIFF files. That means I could use
> "gswin32c -sDEVICE=3Dtiffg4 -rYYYxYYY ..." to create hi-res TIFFs and
> send those to the printer....   :-)

Well, its clunky, but if it works... ;-)


> OK, there is light at the end of the tunnel now, thanks to you. :-)
>=20
> Now I have various options to explore on behalf of and suggesting to
> the customer which will keep me busy for quite a few hours:
>=20
> * finding a LucidaSans variant that allows embedding (if be, buying a
> special license from Bigelow & Holmes Inc);

The one in my Windows Font folder seems to be OK for me, it does have a=20
restricted flag, but my copy of GS embeds it happily enough.

> * getting a quote from Artifex about Ghostscript with MM fonts to be
> embedded as a substitute;

That's probably a last resort, I'm not sure what the state of the MM=20
synthesis code is.

> * using GPL Ghostscript to "print to TIFF" with the original font;
> * hacking the printer, install the font in question there and get it
> to be used for rendering the pages...

That will always work, assuming your printer always accepts some bitmap=20
format, but it will of course use up disk space (for the bitmap) and may=20
be slower (bitmaps take a while to send to printers).

These days those issues are *much* less a concern thatn they used to be=20
of course.



=09=09=09Ken
0
ken
3/24/2010 8:57:35 AM
In article <bb2a5e1e-d302-45d9-8d16-
38584aeb2e0d@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, pipitas@googlemail.com 
says...

> I added a "-dTTFDEBUG" switch to the commandline. Still don't get an
> idea as to why Ghostscript loads, but does not use the LucidaSans
> fontfille but still substitues by Helvetica. I do not see any license
> problem reference. The last few lines of a loooooong output are these:

You won't see licencing problems with that version of Ghostscript I 
think, its too old. That version didn't honour the embedding flags in 
TrueType fonts (maybe I shouldn't say that....) but just happily 
embedded all TT fonts. The change to follow the embedding flags was amde 
near the end of March 2008.

On the other hand, it obviously won't embed the font either, and if it 
was a licecnig problem it would say so. 

I can't really say why it won't embed, there's no clue in the debug 
output I'm afraid. However, 8.62 is really quite old now (released 29 
Feb 2008, so slightly over 2 years) and there have been numerous 
improvements to it in general and to the PDF output code in particular 
since then.

> 
> ----
> [....]
> findname: 6 = (LucidaSans)
> findname: 0 = (Copyright \(c\) 1999 by Bigelow & Holmes Inc. Pat. Des.
> 289,420.)
> findname: 1 = (Lucida Sans)
> findname: 4 = (Lucida Sans Regular)
> findname: 5 = (Version 1.20 - October 2000)

My version of this font is labelled version 1.67. Came in the 
Windows/Fonts folder of Windows Vista. Intriguingly however its 
copyright 1991....


I'd be happy to make a one-off PDF for you using my GS and TT font if 
you'll send me a file to try. Or I can try with your version of Lucida 
if you send me that.


			Ken
0
ken
3/24/2010 9:08:40 AM
On Mar 24, 10:08=A0am, ken <k...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> In article <bb2a5e1e-d302-45d9-8d16-
> 38584aeb2...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, pipi...@googlemail.com
> says...
>
> > I added a "-dTTFDEBUG" switch to the commandline. Still don't get an
> > idea as to why Ghostscript loads, but does not use the LucidaSans
> > fontfille but still substitues by Helvetica. I do not see any license
> > problem reference. The last few lines of a loooooong output are these:
>
> You won't see licencing problems with that version of Ghostscript I
> think, its too old. That version didn't honour the embedding flags in
> TrueType fonts (maybe I shouldn't say that....) but just happily
> embedded all TT fonts. The change to follow the embedding flags was amde
> near the end of March 2008.
>
> On the other hand, it obviously won't embed the font either, and if it
> was a licecnig problem it would say so.
>
> I can't really say why it won't embed, there's no clue in the debug
> output I'm afraid. However, 8.62 is really quite old now (released 29
> Feb 2008, so slightly over 2 years) and there have been numerous
> improvements to it in general and to the PDF output code in particular
> since then.
>
>
>
> > ----
> > [....]
> > findname: 6 =3D (LucidaSans)
> > findname: 0 =3D (Copyright \(c\) 1999 by Bigelow & Holmes Inc. Pat. Des=
..
> > 289,420.)
> > findname: 1 =3D (Lucida Sans)
> > findname: 4 =3D (Lucida Sans Regular)
> > findname: 5 =3D (Version 1.20 - October 2000)
>
> My version of this font is labelled version 1.67. Came in the
> Windows/Fonts folder of Windows Vista. Intriguingly however its
> copyright 1991....
>
> I'd be happy to make a one-off PDF for you using my GS and TT font if
> you'll send me a file to try. Or I can try with your version of Lucida
> if you send me that.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Ken

Hi, Ken,

thanks for the offer. I'll send you an example PDF, its *.docx source
and my LucidaSansRegular.ttf file by private mail.

Cheers,
pipitas
0
pipitas
3/24/2010 6:16:07 PM
On Mar 24, 10:08=A0am, ken <k...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> In article <bb2a5e1e-d302-45d9-8d16-
> 38584aeb2...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, pipi...@googlemail.com
> says...
>
> > I added a "-dTTFDEBUG" switch to the commandline. Still don't get an
> > idea as to why Ghostscript loads, but does not use the LucidaSans
> > fontfille but still substitues by Helvetica. I do not see any license
> > problem reference. The last few lines of a loooooong output are these:
>
> You won't see licencing problems with that version of Ghostscript I
> think, its too old. That version didn't honour the embedding flags in
> TrueType fonts (maybe I shouldn't say that....) but just happily
> embedded all TT fonts. The change to follow the embedding flags was amde
> near the end of March 2008.
>
> On the other hand, it obviously won't embed the font either, and if it
> was a licecnig problem it would say so.
>
> I can't really say why it won't embed, there's no clue in the debug
> output I'm afraid. However, 8.62 is really quite old now (released 29
> Feb 2008, so slightly over 2 years) and there have been numerous
> improvements to it in general and to the PDF output code in particular
> since then.

Yes, I followed the commit logs in SVN for a while  :-)

It's my duty now anyway to finally do a 8.71 testdrive. I'll do
a.s.a.p. and I'm curious to see if a different message with reference
to the license will be seen if I run the same command and Fontmap.GS
with that version.

Cheers,
pipitas
0
pipitas
3/24/2010 6:19:48 PM
>>>>> "P" == pipitas  <pipitas@googlemail.com> writes:

P> * Why t.f. do vendors ship a font at all that does not allow
P> embedding, and hence, does not guarantee high fidelity printing?

In this particular case, Sun shipped the font for the express purpose of
on-screen (aka user interface) use by Java apps and applets.  Presumably,
they licensed it that way to reduce the fee.

That said, 'doze has shipped version(s?) of Lucida Sans for quite some
time; certainly Lsans.ttf, Lsansd.ttf, Lsansi.ttf and Lsansdi.ttf came
with my laptop (which shipped with XP).  These are different versions
than what ships w/ Java.  Their existance in doze is probably why your
document uses them, but it should be using the doze versions, not the
java versions.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
0
James
4/7/2010 6:59:13 PM
On Apr 7, 8:59=A0pm, James Cloos <cl...@jhcloos.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "P" =3D=3D pipitas =A0<pipi...@googlemail.com> writes:
>
> P> * Why t.f. do vendors ship a font at all that does not allow
> P> embedding, and hence, does not guarantee high fidelity printing?
>
> In this particular case, Sun shipped the font for the express purpose of
> on-screen (aka user interface) use by Java apps and applets. =A0Presumabl=
y,
> they licensed it that way to reduce the fee.

Half right, half wrong.

The font (and the jre) where installed by Adobe's Lifecycle Designer,
and the font as well as other JRE-files ended up in a deep
subdirectory of c:\program files\adobe\acrobat 9.0\...

That in itself would not yet force all other applications to mis-
behave. But the installation routine also changed keys in the registry
which define default and system fonts (\HKLM\software\microsoft
\windowsnt\currentversion\fonts). In this particular case now the
"Lucida Sans Regular" maps to the un-embeddably fontfile, while the c:
\windows\fonts\lsans.ttf file is still there in the filesystem, but un-
available to all applications (including Adobe Distiller).

The fact remains that Adobe installed the font in their %programdir%,
and they changed the registry key.

> That said, 'doze has shipped version(s?) of Lucida Sans for quite some
> time; certainly Lsans.ttf, Lsansd.ttf, Lsansi.ttf and Lsansdi.ttf came
> with my laptop (which shipped with XP). =A0These are different versions
> than what ships w/ Java.

Right.

>=A0Their existance in doze is probably why your
> document uses them, but it should be using the doze versions, not the
> java versions.

The registry entries prevent anybody from "seeing" the c:\windows\fonts
\lsans.ttf even in Windows Explorer. You can only know it is still
there if you use a cmd.exe Window.

Thanks for your input.

Cheers,
pipitas
0
pipitas
4/8/2010 7:03:30 AM
Reply: