This is an actual bug, but where it comes from is the question.
I'm writing a document in Word using the font ITCLegacySerif LT Book. I do Check All, choose corrections, and replace words with SpellCatcher. The replaced words, according to Word, are in the font LegacySerifLT-Book, and Word flags it as a font substitution, and subtly respaces things. (This also happens with at least one other Type 1 font, but not, as you'd imagine, with TrueType or OTF.)
Now, the bitmap for this font on my computer is called ITCLegacySerif LT Book, which is what Word calls it. The postscript end of this Type 1 duo is called LegacSerLTBoo, which is just about what Word calls it after the substitution. So my *guess* is, when SpellCatcher does its thing, it references the font by its postscript file, while Word references it by its bitmap file, which then confuses Word. Moreover, since SpellCatcher doesn't reference the bitmap file, letter spacing comes from the postscript file, which differs in that regard from the bitmap file.
The bottom line is, this is a problem. As always, if it's caused by Word, Word is not likely to change, so is it something SpellCatcher can work around? It seems like it would be as simple as SC referencing the bitmap file when it does the substitution, even if it uses the postscript file when creating the substitution. Or maybe SC is the one not playing by the rules. Either way, I hope you can make this come out all right, and I look forward to your always lucid explanation of what's wrong, for my own education.
Thanks.
0
Font changes (?) when replacing words
Started by heartyangel, Jan 20 2007 08:39 PM
2 replies to this topic
#2
-
- Admin
-
- 2,941 posts
Administrator
- Gender:Male
- Location:Toronto, Canada
- Interests:This Place!
Posted 22 January 2007 - 03:57 AM
heartyangel, on Jan 20 2007, 08:39 PM, said:
This is an actual bug, but where it comes from is the question.
I'm writing a document in Word using the font ITCLegacySerif LT Book. I do Check All, choose corrections, and replace words with SpellCatcher. The replaced words, according to Word, are in the font LegacySerifLT-Book, and Word flags it as a font substitution, and subtly respaces things. (This also happens with at least one other Type 1 font, but not, as you'd imagine, with TrueType or OTF.)
Now, the bitmap for this font on my computer is called ITCLegacySerif LT Book, which is what Word calls it. The postscript end of this Type 1 duo is called LegacSerLTBoo, which is just about what Word calls it after the substitution. So my *guess* is, when SpellCatcher does its thing, it references the font by its postscript file, while Word references it by its bitmap file, which then confuses Word. Moreover, since SpellCatcher doesn't reference the bitmap file, letter spacing comes from the postscript file, which differs in that regard from the bitmap file.
The bottom line is, this is a problem. As always, if it's caused by Word, Word is not likely to change, so is it something SpellCatcher can work around? It seems like it would be as simple as SC referencing the bitmap file when it does the substitution, even if it uses the postscript file when creating the substitution. Or maybe SC is the one not playing by the rules. Either way, I hope you can make this come out all right, and I look forward to your always lucid explanation of what's wrong, for my own education.
Thanks.
I'm writing a document in Word using the font ITCLegacySerif LT Book. I do Check All, choose corrections, and replace words with SpellCatcher. The replaced words, according to Word, are in the font LegacySerifLT-Book, and Word flags it as a font substitution, and subtly respaces things. (This also happens with at least one other Type 1 font, but not, as you'd imagine, with TrueType or OTF.)
Now, the bitmap for this font on my computer is called ITCLegacySerif LT Book, which is what Word calls it. The postscript end of this Type 1 duo is called LegacSerLTBoo, which is just about what Word calls it after the substitution. So my *guess* is, when SpellCatcher does its thing, it references the font by its postscript file, while Word references it by its bitmap file, which then confuses Word. Moreover, since SpellCatcher doesn't reference the bitmap file, letter spacing comes from the postscript file, which differs in that regard from the bitmap file.
The bottom line is, this is a problem. As always, if it's caused by Word, Word is not likely to change, so is it something SpellCatcher can work around? It seems like it would be as simple as SC referencing the bitmap file when it does the substitution, even if it uses the postscript file when creating the substitution. Or maybe SC is the one not playing by the rules. Either way, I hope you can make this come out all right, and I look forward to your always lucid explanation of what's wrong, for my own education.
Thanks.
I wish I could give you the usual lucid explanation, but sorry to say I'm not much of an expert on fonts...
Also realize we're dealing with Word here - and I have heard of various issues with the way it deals with type 1 fonts.
Add to the above the fact that Spell Catcher uses Mac OS X's built-in RTF translators to read and write the clipboard contents, and you've actually got a potentially very complicated situation here.
Try this basic experiment first: Manually copy the selection you're checking with Spell Catcher to the clipboard, paste it into an untitled document in the TextEdit app. Now select all in TextEdit, Cut (not copy!), and then Paste back into Word.
What happens to the font? I suspect the same thing as with Spell Catcher, but need you to verify.
Have you tried customizing the way that Word does its font substitutions? I think that's possible, and worth a try.
#3
-
- Members
-
- 15 posts
Member
Posted 22 January 2007 - 07:31 PM
Evan Gross, on Jan 22 2007, 12:57 AM, said:
heartyangel, on Jan 20 2007, 08:39 PM, said:
This is an actual bug, but where it comes from is the question.
I'm writing a document in Word using the font ITCLegacySerif LT Book. I do Check All, choose corrections, and replace words with SpellCatcher. The replaced words, according to Word, are in the font LegacySerifLT-Book, and Word flags it as a font substitution, and subtly respaces things. (This also happens with at least one other Type 1 font, but not, as you'd imagine, with TrueType or OTF.)
Now, the bitmap for this font on my computer is called ITCLegacySerif LT Book, which is what Word calls it. The postscript end of this Type 1 duo is called LegacSerLTBoo, which is just about what Word calls it after the substitution. So my *guess* is, when SpellCatcher does its thing, it references the font by its postscript file, while Word references it by its bitmap file, which then confuses Word. Moreover, since SpellCatcher doesn't reference the bitmap file, letter spacing comes from the postscript file, which differs in that regard from the bitmap file.
The bottom line is, this is a problem. As always, if it's caused by Word, Word is not likely to change, so is it something SpellCatcher can work around? It seems like it would be as simple as SC referencing the bitmap file when it does the substitution, even if it uses the postscript file when creating the substitution. Or maybe SC is the one not playing by the rules. Either way, I hope you can make this come out all right, and I look forward to your always lucid explanation of what's wrong, for my own education.
Thanks.
I'm writing a document in Word using the font ITCLegacySerif LT Book. I do Check All, choose corrections, and replace words with SpellCatcher. The replaced words, according to Word, are in the font LegacySerifLT-Book, and Word flags it as a font substitution, and subtly respaces things. (This also happens with at least one other Type 1 font, but not, as you'd imagine, with TrueType or OTF.)
Now, the bitmap for this font on my computer is called ITCLegacySerif LT Book, which is what Word calls it. The postscript end of this Type 1 duo is called LegacSerLTBoo, which is just about what Word calls it after the substitution. So my *guess* is, when SpellCatcher does its thing, it references the font by its postscript file, while Word references it by its bitmap file, which then confuses Word. Moreover, since SpellCatcher doesn't reference the bitmap file, letter spacing comes from the postscript file, which differs in that regard from the bitmap file.
The bottom line is, this is a problem. As always, if it's caused by Word, Word is not likely to change, so is it something SpellCatcher can work around? It seems like it would be as simple as SC referencing the bitmap file when it does the substitution, even if it uses the postscript file when creating the substitution. Or maybe SC is the one not playing by the rules. Either way, I hope you can make this come out all right, and I look forward to your always lucid explanation of what's wrong, for my own education.
Thanks.
I wish I could give you the usual lucid explanation, but sorry to say I'm not much of an expert on fonts...
Also realize we're dealing with Word here - and I have heard of various issues with the way it deals with type 1 fonts.
Add to the above the fact that Spell Catcher uses Mac OS X's built-in RTF translators to read and write the clipboard contents, and you've actually got a potentially very complicated situation here.
Try this basic experiment first: Manually copy the selection you're checking with Spell Catcher to the clipboard, paste it into an untitled document in the TextEdit app. Now select all in TextEdit, Cut (not copy!), and then Paste back into Word.
What happens to the font? I suspect the same thing as with Spell Catcher, but need you to verify.
Have you tried customizing the way that Word does its font substitutions? I think that's possible, and worth a try.
Yep, that's exactly what happens.
As far as Word and font substitution goes : you can tell Word to change a specific font to another specific font. You don't even have to have the first font on your computer to tell Word to change it if it sees it. But that would be tedious if you have a lot of Type 1's, as I do. Type 1's are somewhat "old tech" at this point, but the problem is, there aren't always "new tech' versions of the fonts out there. So if there's another solution…
If, as seems likely, Word is doing something that doesn't comport with Mac guidelines - do they care? Or are they still in "we'll do whatever we want to" mode?
