Bug 689431 - PostScript fonts incompatible with Adobe Type Manager
Summary: PostScript fonts incompatible with Adobe Type Manager
Status: NOTIFIED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: Fonts
Classification: Unclassified
Component: free URW (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Assignee: Ralph Giles
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-09-04 18:43 UTC by goldart.geo
Modified: 2008-12-19 08:31 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Customer:
Word Size: ---


Attachments
Fixed and added PFMs (ghostscript-fonts-std-8.11-PFMs.zip) (65.67 KB, application/x-zip-compressed)
2007-11-18 01:09 UTC, SaGS
Details
tg-v1.104otf.zip (2.46 MB, application/zip)
2008-09-30 20:06 UTC, goldart.geo
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description goldart.geo 2007-09-04 18:43:12 UTC
Symptoms: PostScript fonts incompatible with Adobe Type Manager

When viewing some PostScript font files that are shipped with Ghostscript
package, they are not recognized by Adobe Type Manager.  Adobe Type Manager
shows error message 'An error occured while trying to show sample sheet' when
trying to view those files.  Affected files include:

c059013l.pfb (Century Schoolbook L Roman, version 1.06)
c059016l.pfb (Century Schoolbook L Bold, version 1.06)
c059033l.pfb (Century Schoolbook L Italic, version 1.06)
c059036l.pfb (Century Schoolbook L Bold Italic, version 1.06)
d050000l.pfb (Dingbats, version 001.005)
n019043l.pfb (Nimbus Sans L Regular Condensed, version 1.06)
n019044l.pfb (Nimbus Sans L Bold Condensed, version 1.06)
n019063l.pfb (Nimbus Sans L Regular Condensed Italic, version 1.06)
n022003l.pfb (Nimbus Mono L Regular, version 1.06)
n022004l.pfb (Nimbus Mono L Bold, version 1.06)
n022023l.pfb (Nimbus Mono L Regular Oblique, version 1.06)
n022024l.pfb (Nimbus Mono L Bold Oblique, version 1.06)
p052003l.pfb (URW Palladio L Roman, version 1.06)
p052004l.pfb (URW Palladio L Bold, version 1.06)
p052023l.pfb (URW Palladio L Italic, version 1.06)
p052024l.pfb (URW Palladio L Bold Italic, version 1.06)
s050000l.pfb (Standard Symbols L, version 001.005)

The inability for ATM to recognize these files can prevent these fonts from
being downloaded to printer, causing inconsistent document appearence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ghostscript version (or include output from "gs -h"): 8.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where you got Ghostscript: Ghostscript.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardware system you are using (including printer model if the problem
involves printing):

Memory: 384MB
CPU: Intel Pentium II 400
Sound: ESS Solo-1
Video: Neomagic MagicMedia 256AV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating system you are using: Windows 98SE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are using X Windows, and your problem involved output to the
screen, the output from running xdpyinfo and xwininfo:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C compiler you are using, including its version, if you compiled
Ghostscript yourself:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you compiled Ghostscript yourself, changes you made to the makefiles:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environment variables:

	GS_DEVICE

	GS_FONTPATH

	GS_LIB

	GS_OPTIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Command line:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL or FTP location of test files (include the data at the end of this
form if 500K or less):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suggested fix, if any:

All, and only, the affected files mentioned above do not have their
corresponding .pfm (binary PostScript Font Metrics) files, so it appears that
the incompatibility is caused by the lack of such files.  An obvious solution is
to just add those files.  However, Windows Vista does not support Type 1 font
when used with GDI+ library, so the resulting font is only useful for limited
environment.  Furthermore, tools that can edit PostScript outline are rare and
more expensive in comparison, so finding font contributor may be an issue.

A longer term solution is to just ship OpenType fonts for all environments,
which can include both outlines and font metrics into one file, eliminating the
chance of missing files when creating Ghostscript font packages for target
platforms. Furthermore, the PostScript font outline used in OpenType is in CFF,
so it is fully compatible with Vista. OpenType font is well supported under Unix
and compatibles (via FreeType), Microsoft Windows (9x with ATM), Mac OS, so they
can be used outside Ghostscript.  However, if Ghostscript ever ships OpenType
fonts, it is more preferable for the fonts to use TrueType outline, because it
is easier to find tools that can edit them, and Ghostscript already support type 42.
Comment 1 goldart.geo 2007-09-14 14:00:28 UTC
The latest free URW fonts distributed with GNOME do come with .pfm, which allows
the fonts to be recognized by ATM. However, for some reason there no hinting on
these fonts, which need to be fixed before bundling them into Ghostscript. Even
so, it is still preferable to switch to OpenType format to reduce the chance of
human error.
Comment 2 Ralph Giles 2007-09-18 12:42:40 UTC
So, we ship .pfm files for some but not all of the pfb fonts. I gather this is
the issue? If so, the resolution of this bug is to ships .pfb files for all of
them in the next release.

We don't see any advantage to converting the files to CFF OpenType in the near
future. Perhaps if our font parser gets rewritten in C and is demonstrably faster.
Comment 3 Russell Lang 2007-11-14 19:41:18 UTC
Repeating Ralph's question, would adding PFM files be sufficient?

At least with an old 16-bit version of ATM, the PFM file was not needed.  You 
only needed the PFB and AFM files, and ATM would generate the necessary PFM 
information.  With Windows Vista, you seem to need a PFM file to install a 
Type 1 font.

Comment 4 SaGS 2007-11-18 01:09:57 UTC
Created attachment 3570 [details]
Fixed and added PFMs (ghostscript-fonts-std-8.11-PFMs.zip)

I'm not the OP, but looked into this and related problems time ago.

> Repeating Ralph's question, would adding PFM files be sufficient?

Yes and no.

Yes, because having PFB + PFM pairs is sufficient.

No, because the PFMs currently shipped are not accepted by the 
Type 1 manager built into Windows (tested with WinXP-SP2), although 
they are accepted by Adobe Type Manager Lite on Win98SE. There are 
already some reports here about this. There are two separate causes, 
both dealing with the kerning table. One was fixed a long time ago 
in PFAEdit, but PFMs with that defect are still floating around 
(some in the GS distribution). I have no idea what's the status 
with the 2nd issue.

I attach a ZIP with the PFMs that worked for me, corresponding to 
the fonts in "ghostscript-fonts-std-8.11.tar.gz". The files with 
uppercase letters in names are new (note: change them to lowercase, 
this case thing was just the way I used to distinguish them). The 
others are modified versions of existing files.


> At least with an old 16-bit version of ATM, the PFM file was not 
> needed.  You only needed the PFB and AFM files, and ATM would 
> generate the necessary PFM information.  With Windows Vista, you 
> seem to need a PFM file to install a Type 1 font.

Maybe there was a third file inthere, a *.INF?

The combination PFB + AFM + INF works with ATM and Windows too, 
but there are some annoyances:

  - Cannot preview the font by double-clicking;
  - Cannot install it by drag'n'drop; must use "Control Panel"/ 
    "Fonts"/ "File"/ "Install new font..."/ etc, and the font 
    installer will generate the PFM and add the font;
  - Adobe does not document this format (and it's not related in 
    any way to the *.INF files used by Windows setup); there is 
    some information about it on the Net, but unofficial.
Comment 5 Russell Lang 2007-11-18 01:56:17 UTC
The Adobe Type Basics fonts I have from 1992 do indeed have the PFB/AFM/INF 
set of files.  These will install on Windows XP, but will not install on 
Windows Vista.  Windows Vista required PFB/PFM files.  I used a shareware 
application to convert AFM to PFM, and then successfully installed the fonts 
on Windows Vista.
Comment 6 goldart.geo 2007-11-26 14:16:22 UTC
> We don't see any advantage to converting the files to CFF OpenType in the near
> future. Perhaps if our font parser gets rewritten in C and is demonstrably
> faster.

In addition of Vista WPF only supports PostScript as OpenType CFF, PostScript
Type 1 font only supports 256 glyphs, which require implementing hacks to type 1
format to support characters added by extensions such as the Cyrillized free URW
fonts and Free UCS Outline Fonts projects. Furthermore, today's PostScript
printers include core fonts using bigger character sets and incorporate text
layout features, which cannot be fully utilized or previewed properly unless
Ghostscript fonts are updated, and the fonts are not going to be updated
properly or at all unless the font is converted to a modern format that can
accommodate larger character sets and typographic features.
Comment 7 goldart.geo 2008-07-08 15:54:08 UTC
The latest (8.62) binary release package still does not include the needed PFMs.
Although it isn't exactly the OpenType update needed, but it is better than nothing.
Comment 8 goldart.geo 2008-09-30 20:02:09 UTC
The TeX Gyre project[1] currently hosts OpenType versions of the URW fonts, but
in different names:

Adventor: ITC Avant Garde Gothic
Bonum: URW Bookman L
Chorus: URW Chancery L Medium Italic
Cursor: Nimbus Mono L/Courier
Heros: Nimbus Sans L/Helvetica
Pagella: URW Palladio L/Palatino
Schola: URW Century Schoolbook L
Termes: Nimbus Roman No9 L

These fonts have extended the glyph set to 1250 glyphs, which should satisfy the
future need for Ghostscript and other font application for quite some time.

[1] http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre
Comment 9 goldart.geo 2008-09-30 20:06:14 UTC
Created attachment 4454 [details]
tg-v1.104otf.zip

As I mentioned before, here are the TeX Gyre fonts. It includes all the
extended variants except Symbol and ITC Zapf Dingbats clones, in OpenType
format.
Comment 10 goldart.geo 2008-10-03 13:31:28 UTC
There are few notes about the TeX Gyre fonts:

- The fonts are distributed under GUST Font License (GFL), which is legal
equivalent to LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL), version 1.3c or later.
Although they are considered as free software licences by FSF, but it is not
compatible with the GPL because in section CONDITIONS ON DISTRIBUTION AND
MODIFICATION, clause 6d says you must distribute unmodified copy of the work, or
information of obtaining it. Considering that the current GPL Ghostscript fonts
haven't been updated for nearly 5 years, and the Cyrillized free URW fonts
haven't been incorporated to the core font set since then, I believe it is time
to end the stagnation and start negotiating with TeX Gyre developers over the
licensing issues NOW, while it is still easy to track down TG contributers. As a
result, the priority is raised to P3.

- The TG fonts use matrix heights taller than the current Ghostscript fonts,
which can lead to text formatting issues. The heights are even taller than the
Microsoft's counterparts (eg: Heros > Arial > Nimbus Sans L, Pagella > Palatino
Linotype > Palatino), and in the Cursor, it is narrower than Courier New. This
is an issue to be addressed before using TG fonts as a replacement, but it
cannot be done until licensing issue is taken care of.

- The TG fonts blanketly naming all the font weights to regular and bold, which
can be problematic for font matching. For example, URW Bookman L Demi is now
called Bonum Bold, even though in ITC Bookman (which the designs of both fonts
originate), the bold font is heavier than Bonum Bold.

- The TG extensions may not be metric compatible with the original intents of
foundries and designers, or using the same PUA code point assignments in the
original fonts. This can cause formatting errors for users that use fonts
embedded into printers, or printing documents using fonts from original
foundries/designers, especially when OpenType features are used. That affects
Adventor, which has an updated form called ITC Avant Garde Gothic Pro that
includes extra ligatures; Bonum, which affects supports of swashes in ITC
Bookman; Chorus, which affects ITC Zapf Chancery Pro (Monotype); Heros, which
affect Neue Helvetica, Helvetica World; Pagella, which affect Palatino Linotype,
Palatino nova; Termes, which affect Times New Roman (Monotype, Windows), Times
(Linotype, Mac OS), CG Times, Symbol.

- When/if the TG fonts get adopted by Ghostscript, the Standard Symbols L and
Dingbats fonts still need to be overhauled. The Symbol fonts can be made into
some symbolic link to Termes Regular Greek characters (which is how Monotype
built separate Symbol font using Times New Roman Greek). As for Dingbats, the
Adobe version of ITC Zapf Dingbats already mapped the glyphs to their Unicode
counterparts, so it is trivial to implement. However, the real goal is to turn
the new Dingbats font into a generic Unicode font that include all the
Unicode-assigned dingbats and symbols that do not have type-sensitive components
(eg: letters enclosed by circles, squares, or recycle symbol).
Comment 11 goldart.geo 2008-10-06 17:03:06 UTC
After some investigation over TeX Gyre fonts, these fonts are modified from the
GPL Ghostscript fonts, and were relicensed, under terms incompatible with
original licence, without records to prove authorizations by previuous
authors.[1] Unless licence issue is resolved, it can further undermine any
future efforts of updating existing fonts.

As a result of the discovery, the priority is raised to P2.

Here are some contacts to the developers (Polish preferred):
Janusz M. Nowacki, "Ulan": http://www.janusz.nowacki.strefa.pl/home-e.html
Marcin Woliński: http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/~wolinski/TeX.html

[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com/msg00480.html
Comment 12 Ray Johnston 2008-10-06 17:16:12 UTC
Since Artifex Software Inc. is the primary "support" organization on this
bug tracker (bugs.ghostscript.com), I am closing this bug as not relevant
(since it seems to have devolved into a Tex Gyre licensing problem).