cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Security Alert Log4j Security Vulnerability. Click here to know more.
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

font expansion in 5.2 on PE/PDF Direct?

naglists
1-Newbie

font expansion in 5.2 on PE/PDF Direct?

Has anyone run across font expansion in Publishing Engine / PDF Direct
5.2? We're in the process of testing three applications slated to
upgrade from 5.1h to 5.2 m030. Two of them use Franklin Gothic (ITC
version). In both of these applications, we are seeing the text expand
in width (kerning wider) to the point where line breaks can be
different. We are not sure whether this problem is intra-word or
inter-word or both. That said, it doesn't happen with our third
appliciation which uses Arial.

We are running Publishing Engine on Windows 2003 Server and E3 on
Windows 2000 Server.

--
Paul Nagai
13 REPLIES 13

Paul,

Check the hyphenation. There was an update to the way Ax hyphenates and
this may be the culprit (rather than the kerning).

Hi Paul,

We primarily use Helvetica and Symbol and didn't notice anything in terms
of horizontal kerning differences with these fonts when upgrading from
5.1M to 5.2.

For your purposes, try comparing the size of the *.tfm and *.afm font
files in .aptcache/fonts. You may notice some size expansion there, I
believe due to some additional support for Unicode, additional languages,
or both. One of our workarounds involves using the wsdk2afm.exe that
shipped with 5.1M instead of that shipped with 5.2M020, but your mileage
may vary.

We logged a few support cases using 5.2 and 5.2M020 that appear to relate
to differences in font handling, line breaks, or both. By now our system
is two or three workarounds away from out-of-the-box composition behavior.

There does seem to be some kerning differences when special characters
(that don't exist in Helvetica) are substituted with another font, such as
Arial. It's as if the horizontal spacing from one font to the next isn't
lining up just right. However, this issue has been largely minimized and 3
out of 4 PE servers look great.

This may not be relevant, but you mention line breaks. One of our issues
with line breaks was skirted by using a flattened FOSI instead of a
modular FOSI. Other issues may be related to OS differences, possibly
including corrupt font installations.

Churning up folklore outta left field,
Jason





"Paul Nagai" <->
10/04/2006 05:16 PM
Please respond to
-


To
adepters@arbortext.com
cc

Subject
font expansion in 5.2 on PE/PDF Direct?






Has anyone run across font expansion in Publishing Engine / PDF Direct
5.2? We're in the process of testing three applications slated to
upgrade from 5.1h to 5.2 m030. Two of them use Franklin Gothic (ITC
version). In both of these applications, we are seeing the text expand
in width (kerning wider) to the point where line breaks can be
different. We are not sure whether this problem is intra-word or
inter-word or both. That said, it doesn't happen with our third
appliciation which uses Arial.

We are running Publishing Engine on Windows 2003 Server and E3 on
Windows 2000 Server.

--
Paul Nagai

Hi Kristina,

Thanks for the suggestion.

Hyphenation is off <hyphen hyph="0"> in the docdesc, our standalone
chunk charsubset, and several other places. I'm pretty sure we don't
allow it anywhere. I couldn't find any description of the hyphenation
changes in the Help ... do you have a reference on them or did you
discover this in a call? Regardless, whatever the changes are, would
having no hyphenation eliminate this as a possible root cause?

Hi Jason,
Thanks for responding.

I'd be comparing 5.1 *.tfm/*.afm files to 5.2 versions purely on a
filesize basis? Or do I need to look inside? I think these are the
"converted" font metrics files actually used by PE (or Editor) to
perform composition. What would a difference (or absence of a
difference) suggest?

To swap wsdk2afm.exe I'd just rename the original, copy over the 5.1h
version, and restart Tomcat?

I wonder about the possibility of OS differences. I was disappointed
support wouldn't test our case on the OS we're running. I hadn't
considered a corrupted font installation. I can uninstall / reinstall.
Our FOSI isn't modular. I don't think the expansion is related to
multiple fonts on a line (switching back and forth and all that)
although I do think Franklin Gothic bold does not expand while plain
does. Not sure about italic or bolditalic.

Thanks again.

The 5.2 *.afm and *.tfm files are different in file size and content (much
bigger).
I had a problem in 5.2 using Frutiger font, it looked like for the "t"
character the kerning was different. In fact the "t" was missing in the
*.afm *.tfm files and a substitution font was used in the PDF.
This is a bug in the wsdk2afm exe, it was already reported by someone else
using Helvetica.

Here is what PTC support told me:

Regarding this issue, please note the following:

On 10/5/06, McCook, Kristina <-> wrote:
> The info on the hyphenation changes are in the M030 release notes.

Yeah, that was obvious. Should have looked there.

> Arial is a common system font but ITC Franklin Gothic is not. I'm
> wondering if there is a conflict with a print driver since you are
> seeing this kerning in your PDF output. Have you recently upgraded Adobe
> to v7? I have seen some weird things happen with their recent upgrades
> to their products, not just in Ax but in other apps as well.

While Acrobat 5.0 (full version) is installed on the server, we're not
using Adobe products to create the PDFs. We're using PDF Direct,
software Arbortext bought/wrote/licensed (I forget) to create PDFs
without Adobe technology.

I believe the spooler service on this server is disabled for security
purposes. I don't think there are *any* print drivers.

--
Paul Nagai

On 10/5/06, Yvonne.Haass@vftis.spx.com <yvonne.haass@vftis.spx.com> wrote:
> The 5.2 *.afm and *.tfm files are different in file size and content (much
> bigger).
> I had a problem in 5.2 using Frutiger font, it looked like for the "t"
> character the kerning was different. In fact the "t" was missing in the
> *.afm *.tfm files and a substitution font was used in the PDF.
> This is a bug in the wsdk2afm exe, it was already reported by someone else
> using Helvetica.

I'm liking the chances of this fixing my problem ... except that
Franklin Gothic is a TTF. Still, it seems promising given the similar
issues reported resolved by falling back to the 5.1 wsdk2afm.exe.
Thanks for the call notes with details on replacing that file.

--
Paul Nagai

Yvonne,

Thanks for providing the extra detail. I believe I was the user with the
missing "t" in Helvetica (or one of them, at least).

Paul,

> I'd be comparing 5.1 *.tfm/*.afm files to 5.2 versions
> purely on a filesize basis?

Sorry for my vague reference to the wsdk2afm.exe. The instructions
provided by Yvonne explain the potential issues with the new version and
extra detail on when it will be fixed (this is great info, because I
didn't get all this detail before).

> Or do I need to look inside?
I think the *.afm files are ASCII and can be read using a text editor. The
new wsdk2afm.exe appears to skip the entry for the "t" character. As
described below, this appears to happen only in Type 1 fonts.

The *.tfm files require a font editing program, but few of us want to go
down the path of maintaining custom font flavors to work around the
missing "t" or similar issues.

> I think these are the "converted" font metrics files
> actually used by PE (or Editor) to perform composition.
That's true. The larger font files are to be expected using the new
wsdk2afm.exe. If the workaround to replace wsdk2afm.exe helps you, great.

Not a huge deal, but in my experience 3 out of 4 servers generate smaller
files using the 5.1M-flavor of wsdk2afm.exe. The last server generates the
bigger files. If you carefully adopt this workaround on several servers
and experience differences later, watch these files for an indication of
differences in the fonts installed on the system.

> To swap wsdk2afm.exe I'd just rename the original, copy over the 5.1h
> version, and restart Tomcat?
Yeah, you will have to restart Tomcat and, as Arbortext mentions, clear
all fonts that may reside in custom/fonts and in your .aptcache/fonts
folders. I expect it's a good idea to do this on all clients as well as
the server.

> I wonder about the possibility of OS differences.
We're using Windows 2003 Server (Enterprise and Standard) and PE 5.2M020
with Distiller Server 6.0.1. PDF composition, works great after
implementing the workarounds provided by Arbortext support.

> I hadn't considered a corrupted font installation. I can
> uninstall / reinstall.

On our server that has the atypical font-substitution issue, I can also
uninstall / reinstall. Our problem server is at Service Pack 1;
re-installing the OS and all the software is the next step in
troubleshooting that one.

Are you using any Adobe Acrobat products on your PE servers? I've heard
that the installation order of Adobe Acrobat software can be important.

According to Dov Isaacs (an Adobe Interoperability Engineer who frequently
posts on various Adobe-centric lists and presents on PDF issues at various
conferences), Adobe Reader can "bunnystomp" system-level printer or font
properties if installed *after* another Acrobat product. According to what
I recall, the last Adobe application installed on Windows wins.

At one point, we had this problem on a different Windows 2003 Server
machine (not Enterprise, not Service Pack 1). Uninstalling/Reinstalling
Distiller Server, Tomcat, and PE fixed our font issue there.

Much of this information may only be loosely connected to your issue. In
any event, I hope it helps.

Good luck,
Jason





Yvonne.Haass@vftis.spx.com
10/05/2006 08:58 AM
Please respond to
<adepters@arbortext.com>


To
adepters@arbortext.com
cc

Subject
Re: font expansion in 5.2 on PE/PDF Direct?






The 5.2 *.afm and *.tfm files are different in file size and content (much
bigger).
I had a problem in 5.2 using Frutiger font, it looked like for the "t"
character the kerning was different. In fact the "t" was missing in the
*.afm *.tfm files and a substitution font was used in the PDF.
This is a bug in the wsdk2afm exe, it was already reported by someone else
using Helvetica.

Here is what PTC support told me:

Regarding this issue, please note the following:

Hi Folks--

FWIW, I have had the "missing t" issue as well. (We were getting documents where the body text was Times but all the lowercase 't's were substituted in Arial, which added a sort of ransom-note flavor to the style. 🙂 We also had problems with missing straight double quotes. (You may not even notice this one, if you're using curly quotes. We frequently render samples of code that have to use the literal straight quote character, so it was definitely a problem for us.)

If you want to poke around in the metric files, Jason's right, the AFM files are plain text. To check out the contents of a TFM, you have to convert it to a human readable format. There's a utility, tftopl.exe, in Epic's \bin directory that will convert a TFM file to a PL file, which you can look at and even edit. If you make manual changes and want to save them, you can convert the PL file back to TFM using pltotf.exe. (But I wouldn't recommend editing the metric files, unless you have a pretty good understanding of how fonts work in TeX.)

Also, the larger font files generated by the latest versions of wsdk2afm.exe can cause some problems with Unicode characters. Somehow, for Type I fonts at least, the new version seems to add metrics for all Unicode characters, not just the ones present in the font. So if you use those font metrics and try to print a Unicode character that doesn't exist in the font, you'll get a box glyph instead of the correct character substituted from another font.

In that case, you'll either want to use the old style metric files, or make sure you explicitly specify a Unicode font whenever you try to print an unusual Unicode character.

--Clay

Anyone know how to fix this problem on a unix machine?

Thanks
Patrick Lang

On 10/16/06, LangPatrick <-> wrote:
> Anyone know how to fix this problem on a unix machine?

Hi Patrick,

Can I assume from your question that you seeing this problem in unix?
With what font(s)?

I've been completely swamped with other things and haven't had a
chance yet to test many of the suggestions offered earlier in this
thread. I promise an update when I get to those suggestions.

--
Paul Nagai

Yes we are seeing this on PE 5.2 M030 as well as in a Preliminary release of M040. What file does this on a unix machine, or could I just copy the afm, tfm files from a 5.1 install.

We use Styler for our Catalogs and I have noticed it doesn't seem to happen with a in that output. Our manuals are being styled using FOSI, so maybe it is only FOSI related.

Hi Patrick,

Sorry to hear you are also afflicted with a font issue.

I no longer enjoy working with Arbortext tools on UNIX, so I have little
or nothing to offer in terms of recent, direct experience. (Some of you
may argue that varies little from my other posts, but them's fightin'
words!)

That said, you could always try the *.afm and *.tfm files from your 5.1
install. Run some tests to see what you get; I'd expect this accomplishes
the same thing as Windows users using the wsdk2afm.exe that ships with 5.1
(but there must be something equivalent in the /bin directory on your UNIX
box).

As for differences between Styler and FOSI composition, I can see where
that might be an issue. In my experience, I can get fairly consistent
results from both as long as I'm careful to use the FOSI-based composition
in Styler.

Also, pay attention to your print commands in use under Styler and under
FOSI. You're probably careful to use the same command already, but I've
encountered minor differences in layout depending on which print-related
command I was using. As you know, there's at least two ways to get to PDF
(I see you're using PDF Direct over Distiller), plus there's the Print >
Composed and Compose > PDF commands. Finally, Styler has its "Preview PDF"
feature. At the moment, I don't recall if this uses the built-in Print >
Preview command, adds a new combination into the mix, or re-uses one of
the other print-related commands.

Just curious, did you use the Arbortext executables to create the *.afm
and *.tfm (Clay highlighted these in a recent post) or do you have your
own versions in custom/fonts?

Regards,
Jason





LangPatrick <->
10/20/2006 11:26 AM
Please respond to
<adepters@arbortext.com>


To
<adepters@maillist.arbortext.com>
cc

Subject
Re: font expansion in 5.2 on PE/PDF Direct?






Yes we are seeing this on PE 5.2 M030 as well as in a Preliminary release
of M040. What file does this on a unix machine, or could I just copy the
afm, tfm files from a 5.1 install.

We use Styler for our Catalogs and I have noticed it doesn't seem to
happen with a in that output. Our manuals are being styled using FOSI, so
maybe it is only FOSI related. >> To unsubscribe from the list, send an
email to listmanager@maillist.arbortext.com with the following in the
body: unsubscribe adepters - For additional information on the adepters
list (how to subscribe or unsubscribe etc), send an email to:
listmanager@maillist.arbortext.com with the following in the body: info
Adepters - You may also go to forums.arbortext.com, enter the Adepters
folder and change your subscription options and preferences.>>
Announcements