[Tioga-users] Embedded fonts

[Roy Mayfield]

Bill Paxton wrote:
> 
> On Mar 8, 2007, at 10:05 PM, Roy Mayfield wrote:
> 
>> I am submitting a pdf file to a publisher who requires ALL fonts to be
>> embedded. 
>>   The figures that I have created with Tioga that use ZapfDingbat
>> symbols don't 
>> seem to have that font embedded in the pdf even though I have the
>> pdflatex cfg 
>> file setup to embed the 14 standard fonts.  Is this an issue with
>> Tioga or do I 
>> need to keep digging into the pdflatex setup (or something else)?
>> -- 
>> Thanks,
>> Roy Mayfield
> 
> Hi Roy,
> 
> Thanks for the email.  I presume that you are using ZapfDingbats as
> marker symbols in plots.
> That means that they are treated as graphics elements rather than as
> text to be sent to TeX.
> As you undoubtedly know, the fonts for markers are limited to the 14
> standard Adobe fonts.
> Here's what I say about the situation in the Tioga::MarkerConstants
> documentation:
> 
> "All PDF devices are guaranteed to have the 14 standard Adobe fonts, 
> so they are easy to provide — and that’s what I’ve done."
> 
> http://theory.kitp.ucsb.edu/~paxton/tioga_doc/classes/Tioga/MarkerConstants.html
> 
> It isn't just my idea that these fonts will be available everywhere --
> it is part of the
> definition of PDF and PostScript!  The info on page 416 of the 6th
> Edition of the Adobe PDF Reference 
> Version 1.7 (November 2006) makes it clear
> (http://www.adobe.com/devnet/pdf/pdf_reference.html):
> 
> Standard Type 1 Fonts 
> 
> The PostScript names of 14 Type 1 fonts, known as the standard fonts,
> are as 
> follows: 
> 
> Times−Roman Helvetica Courier Symbol 
> Times−Bold Helvetica−Bold Courier−Bold ZapfDingbats 
> Times−Italic Helvetica−Oblique Courier−Oblique 
> Times−BoldItalic Helvetica−BoldOblique Courier−BoldOblique
> 
> These fonts, or their font metrics and suitable substitution fonts, must
> be avail- 
> able to the consumer application.
> That means that these 14 fonts are built into the PDF/PostScript standard
> and must be available as part of any implementation of PDF/PostScript.
> In other words, these fonts have been declared as part of the standard
> just so
> that it would NOT be necessary to embed them!  And this isn't some new
> addition
> to PostScript -- those 14 fonts have had special status for a long
> time.  For example,
> back in the 2nd Edition of the PDF Reference, the same info appears on
> page 296.
> 
> For any font not on this list, I can understand perfectly why your
> publisher would require
> embedding.   But for the 14 standard fonts, embedding is explicitly
> defined to be stupid!
> 
> So your challenge is to educate your publisher -- good luck!
> 
> Cheers,
> Bill
> 

Hi Bill,

Thanks for the background information.  I am far from informed about
this matter, especially in comparison with you,  but after googling the
topic it seems that my situation is not an isolated case -- some
publishers require all fonts to be embedded.  The argument for this
seems to be based on the quality and uniformity of the standard fonts;
here is a quote from the updmap.cfg man file: "Should pdftex download
the base 14 pdf fonts? Since some configurations (ps / pdf tools /
printers) use bad default fonts, it is safer to download the fonts."

Your point about the pdf standard is a good one, and matters would be
simplified considerably if the standard were applied consistently.
However, a standard is only useful if everyone agrees to adopt it and if
it is implemented effectively and uniformly.  The last point seems to be
the rub in this case.

As for educating publishers, I offer 2 quotes:

1) What is the difference between a publisher and a terrorist?  You can
negotiate with a terrorist.

2) Fatty and skinny went to bed.  Fatty rolled over and skinny was dead.

As an author in a technical field, I am most definitely skinny.
-- 
Cheers,
Roy