Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Forum for the PDF-XChange Editor - Free and Licensed Versions

Moderators: Tracker Support, TrackerSupp-Daniel, Sean - Tracker, Paul - Tracker Supp, Vasyl-Tracker Dev Team, Chris - Tracker Supp, Ivan - Tracker Software, Tracker Supp-Stefan

Post Reply
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by DIV »

I have downloaded the Zilla Slab font family, and spent time applying it to a moderately lengthy & complex document.
Now I am in the position where when I try to make a PDF, I cannot embed that font!

I generate the initial PDF from MS Word. Regardless of whether I ask for PDF/A or not, Word won't (can't) embed it.

When I try to save out from Editor as either PDF/A or PDF/X, Editor: tries to embed the font(s), finds some errors ("glyph is missing in embedded font"), reports errors having been fixed, ...and then fails to save any file.
image(2).png
image(3).png
Whether "Rasterize the unembedded fonts" is selected or not doesn't seem to make any difference.

The problem seems to be that the font explicitly defines a huge number of code positions without specifying any corresponding glyph, as seen in Character Map.
image.png
Please help!
The only options I seem to have at the moment are all bad.
  • Accept the PDF without the font embedded, which means that recipients won't see what I intended.
  • Let Word rasterise the unembedded Zilla Slab fonts, which then get output as rasterised images of entire paragraphs, which looks OK from a distance (but not close up), but is not searchable, text cannot be highlighted, and so on.
  • Manually edit all fonts in the family to remove the troublesome codepoints. This seems like a nightmare to do manually, and I don't even know if it would solve the problem.
  • Go back to 'square one' and find another font family to format my document with.

1. Is this a bug with the font?
2. Does the PDF specification prevent fonts with "missing" glyphs from being embedded?
3. Can Editor be tweaked to handle this (provide an automatic fix)? E.g. automatically remove codepoints with missing glyphs?

It's possible that the issue may be that I've inadvertently used one of the codepoints with a missing glyph, and Word has silently rendered it with a 'similar' font, which is OK for viewing in Word and printing, but — perhaps — not OK for making a PDF with the font embedded.
If so, then it would allow another possible workaround:
  • Manually hunt through the text in my document, looking for 'exotic' characters specified as Zilla Slab but actually rendered with glyphs from another font (because the glyphs are missing in Zilla Slab).
Strangely, Character Map shows Zilla Slab to include a glyph for U+2714 (Heavy Check Mark), but when I tried to include it in my document, Word refused to let me set the font to Zilla Slab, but instead rendered it in Segoe UI Symbol. Therefore I didn't use that character, but instead just used the glyph from Wingdings. Nevertheless, I noticed that a subset of SegoeUISymbol is included in my PDF, so perhaps there was another character doing something similar that I didn't notice.

I can't be certain where I downloaded Zilla Slab from (it was last year, I think): more likely the github link, but it's readily available elsewhere too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zilla_Slab
^^Note forum syntax glitch.

—DIV
User avatar
Tracker Supp-Stefan
Site Admin
Posts: 18124
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:07 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by Tracker Supp-Stefan »

Hello DIV,

Thanks for the post. I asked a colleague who works on fonts to take a look, and he says that we will need some extra details before we can start looking into this.

First - we will need:
- The actual font you have on your machine (you can extract it from C:\Windows\Fonts) or a link to the exact same copy of the font that you have installed. Downloading the font from a different location could give us a different result in our tests - that's why we need an exact copy of yours.
- The original Word file and a step-by-step description of how you are converting the file to PDF (e.g. is it an internal tool in Word, our add-in or a drag and drop of the .docx file over the Editor).
- The resulting PDF(s).

Once we have those - we can look further into this.

Kind regards,
Stefan
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by DIV »

Hello, Stefan.

Attached is a (redacted) copy of the final page of the file.
V_E98rcA_Eng_12_redacted.pdf
(111.74 KiB) Downloaded 109 times
The original PDF file was produced by MS Word.
Microsoft Home & Office Student 2013 (version 15.0.5553.1000), running on Windows 8.1 64-bit.
From the menu I navigate through File > Export > Create PDF/XPS
image(2).png
AFAIK this is a built-in tool that shipped as an integral part of MS Word.
For this particular file I unticked the option for PDF/A output, but it doesn't really seem to matter in this part of the process, because Word doesn't embed the Zilla Slab fonts in either case.
image(3).png
This page was then extracted from the original (multipage) PDF file within PDF-XChange Editor.
PDF-XChange Editor Plus (version 9.4, build 364.0, with "Enhanced OCR"), installed & running on Windows 8.1 64-bit.
image(4).png
The most important point is that the aforementioned problem persists. The Zilla Slab fonts are not embedded, and cannot be embedded when I try within Editor to resave this as PDF/A. Please see the screenshots below.
image.png
image(1).png
Note: I tried this for all of the individual extracted pages, and the same types of errors occurred for all of them; the only differences were in which specific members of the font family were mentioned (e.g. not all pages would have the bold & italic version of the font).

I am not going to be posting the original Word file here. If I can isolate the issue, I can post a cut-down file — or a sample file.

The fonts are version 1 of the Zilla Slab font family.
I actually downloaded them in 2019 (2019-05-23), as it happens.
The zip file is named version "1.0" (presumably I named it that based on the website, as that would be my usual practice).
Internally Windows Font Viewer reports that they are labelled as version "1.1" ...
image(5).png
... whereas FontCreator reports that they are labelled as version "1.001" ...
image(6).png
I suppose the latter is the most trustworthy; Wikipedia reports the latest release version to be "1.002".
I reckon you'd be capable enough of downloading the matching version yourself, but to avoid doubt (and given that this is stated to be a free-to-use and open-source font family) I attach the fonts hereto.
fnt_Zilla-Slab_Fonts_v1-0.zip
(3.81 MiB) Downloaded 92 times
By the way, here is a look at the number of glyphs (1056) in Zilla Slab Regular, along with some other statistics.
image(7).png
That's almost everything you asked for. Hopefully it's enough to start delving into.

I'll keep investigating at my end too.

—DIV
Last edited by DIV on Fri May 26, 2023 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Tracker Supp-Stefan
Site Admin
Posts: 18124
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:07 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by Tracker Supp-Stefan »

Hello DIV,

Thanks for the above, however we will need both the .docx file and the resulting PDF - so please redact the Word file, and share with us a copy of that redacted document + the PDF file you get from exactly the sample Word file that you share with us.

Kind regards,
Stefan
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by DIV »

Hi, Stefan.

After one failed attempt, I now have a simple sample/test document that seems to reproduce the issue. Notably I don't think there are any exotic characters included. The most exotic character is a 'bullet'.
Please refer to the attachments: DOCX file (zipped, as required by this forum), PDF file (created by Word, as described at length above), and screenshots. I hope at this point they're fairly self-explanatory.

Thanks for looking into this,
DIV
PDF_test_embedding_3.docx.zip
(144.88 KiB) Downloaded 99 times
PDF_test_embedding_3.pdf
(138.53 KiB) Downloaded 91 times
image(4).png
image.png
image(1).png
image(2).png
image(3).png
P.S. It's not clear to me why you "need" the Word document to work on this, because — from my point of view — a user could also be in the situation of having been sent the original PDF file (without embedded fonts) and wondering why they can't create a PDF/A version even after installing the requisite fonts onto their system. Or the user might indeed be the author of the source file, but, after making the PDF themself some time ago (without embedded fonts), the source file somehow got lost/corrupted/deleted, so they want to use the original PDF file as the basis for creating a new PDF/A version. Admittedly those are situations that may be less likely to occur ...but they could occur.
Last edited by DIV on Sat May 27, 2023 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Tracker Supp-Stefan
Site Admin
Posts: 18124
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:07 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by Tracker Supp-Stefan »

Hello DIV,

Many thanks for the samples!
I've now looked at the files provided - and after installing the TTF variant of your font into windows - I do not really see any issues.

I managed to get this file using the word's built in export to PDF feature:
Export_from_wort_to_PDF_directly.pdf
(229.52 KiB) Downloaded 85 times
This file using our add-in in word (default settings, no forced font embedding - so the fonts are not embedded in the file:
Word_to_PDF_test.pdf
(22.21 KiB) Downloaded 100 times
And then I was able to convert your PDF file (from your above post) to PDF/A-2b one without any issues:
image.png
PDF_test_embedding_3_A2b.pdf
(178.83 KiB) Downloaded 98 times
So can you please check and confirm which version of the font did you install on your end - as there appear to be 4 different folders in that zip file you provided for the font? I used the TTF set.

Kind regards,
Stefan
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by DIV »

Hi, Stefan.

Thanks for your update.

I'm pretty certain that there's a problem — we just need to get things set up for you to reproduce it.

I was using the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenType]OTF[/url] font files (a newer specification than [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueType]TTF[/url], albeit related).
Sorry I didn't mention it. I have to admit I didn't even look inside the zip file: apparently what I'd done in 2019 was to only extract the OTF files from that archive.
There were a couple of subtle clues in the screenshot from Windows Font Viewer and the second screenshot (of font properties) from FontCreator in my previous forum posting. But I can see that those clues could easily be missed.

Just in case that's still not convincing, I had a look at the installed files, and they are indeed OTF format.
image.png
I would appreciate it if you can try again.

By the way, although you apparently were able to successfully produce the PDF/A file, I notice that there were still a couple of 'errors' displayed. I would be interested to know if you can provide further information about the meaning of the message "Font [...] was fixed: embed fontfile (nnn):". What was wrong, what was fixed, and what do the numbers mean?

—DIV

P.S. Where can I find more information about your add-in for Word? I recall previously there was only a "lite" printer driver that we could freely download and use (PDF-XChange Lite pdfSaver???).

P.P.S. Then again, perhaps you might have stumbled onto a workaround. Perhaps it will work for me if I use the TTF files instead? But I don't want to jump into that immediately. I'd like to be confident that it's going to help, so I'd prefer to see your results with the OTF files. And furthermore I need to consider whether there would be any disadvantage of using the TTF fonts: off the top of my head, OTF has better support for things like ligatures and alternative numerals (e.g. lining versus traditional), although I presume that there'd be no difference in outcome unless such features have actually been used in the document (I thought I might have turned on those features, but apparently I didn't, according to the screenshot below pertaining to the document of concern). Further digging into the font using FontCreator indicates that the ZIlla Slab OTF files use [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenType#Description]CFF[/url]-based contours. Feel free to comment on use of the TTF files as a possible workaround too.
image(1).png
image(1).png (32.62 KiB) Viewed 4467 times
Last edited by DIV on Sat May 27, 2023 12:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by DIV »

FWIW, I notice that Editor does report that subsets of the relevant Zilla Slab fonts have indeed been embedded in the last PDF file that you created, albeit with Type = "TrueType" — in other words, TTF.
image.png
—DIV
User avatar
Tracker Supp-Stefan
Site Admin
Posts: 18124
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:07 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by Tracker Supp-Stefan »

Hello DIV,

Yes - I agree with you that there is still likely an issue - however it's likely only related to the OT version of the font on your machine.
That's why we asked for exactly the font you used - but when you have me an archive with multiple versions - I chose the TTF.
My True Type variant is apparently working OK.

And while there is an "Errors" entry on my screenshot - it has a value of 0 next to it - so there are NO errors in the conversion I did.
Is there any difference (visually) between the TTF I used and the OT on your end? Can you try to substitute the version of the font installed on your machine with the TTF version from the archive you provided and see if it also fixes the conversion for you?

Kind regards,
Stefan
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by DIV »

Hi, Stefan.

OK, if you think it is likely that the problem is associated with only the OTF format of the font, then I can try to check as a workaround whether the TTF format works for me.
I'll let you know what I find out.
However — regardless of what I find out — for the purposes of checking that your Editor application is functioning correctly, I still think it would be advisable for you to also check what happens at your end when the OTF font files are used. Given that we still don't know for sure precisely what is causing the problem, it could possibly affect other font families too. And be a concern for more users.

On the other hand, logically it's also worth checking version 1.002 of the font, in the OTF format, which is apparently the latest version, in case the mysterious problem is resolved.
However, my impression of the [url=https://github.com/mozilla/zilla-slab/tree/master/sources]Zilla Slab files on GitHub[/url] is that nothing substantial has changed; just some typographic errors in a build file ("build.sh") were amended. Maybe I'm overlooking something, but that's all I noticed. So I wouldn't be too optimistic.
UPDATE 1: OK, I now see a [url=https://github.com/mozilla/zilla-slab/releases/tag/v1.002]brief description[/url] of what's changed in the ZIP download: "V1.002: Fix Name table and Highlight font".
UPDATE 2: And "ZillaSlab-RegularItalic.otf" has been renamed to "ZillaSlab-Italic.otf" (likewise for *.TTF).


Sorry for not checking within the ZIP file before uploading it, as I have already acknowledged. I looked at what I had unzipped back in 2019, and presumed that the ZIP contents were identical. Personally I would always opt for the OTF files, because it's a newer format, with more features. But I have already apologised for the fact that I omitted to mention this in my original description.

I am still a little puzzled about the "reports" coming back from Editor.
In my post of Fri May 26, 2023 1:03 pm, there were 195 Errors and 195 Fixes.

Regarding your post of Sat May 27, 2023 12:18 am I wrote:
DIV wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 12:08 pm [...], although you apparently were able to successfully produce the PDF/A file, I notice that there were still a couple of 'errors' displayed. I would be interested to know if you can provide further information about the meaning of the message "Font [...] was fixed: embed fontfile (nnn):". What was wrong, what was fixed, and what do the numbers mean?
Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently careful in my expression, as looking again I see that Editor gave you a report of 0 Errors and 196 Fixes.
So although officially there were no "Errors" reported, surely there must have been something wrong for 196 "Fixes" to have been required. (And if there anything was indeed wrong, why wasn't it officially reported as an "Error"?)

—DIV

P.S. Where can I find more information about your add-in for Word? I recall previously there was only a "lite" printer driver that we could freely download and use (PDF-XChange Lite pdfSaver???).
Willy Van Nuffel
User
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by Willy Van Nuffel »

INFO:

MS-Office Toolbar Add-in - incl. Add-in for Word - is Part of the PDF-XChange Standard Printer:
https://www.pdf-xchange.com/produc ... 9/features

PDF-XChange Printer Lite Free:
https://www.pdf-xchange.com/produc ... hange-lite
User avatar
Tracker Supp-Stefan
Site Admin
Posts: 18124
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:07 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by Tracker Supp-Stefan »

Hello Willy Van Nuffel, DIV,

I have not had the chance to test with the OTF version of the font - will try to do it in the next few days if things calm down enough to be able to spare the time! :)

There are "Fixes" - as the initial file while a perfectly fine PDF document is not conforming to the stricter PDF/A-x.x specification chosen - so these fixes are making it compliant. As you can see - the majority of those are adding the font information as it has to be embedded in the document so that the file is compliant.

"Warnings" and "Errors" will be populated if there is anything that would fall in that category. Usually if there are Errors you will not be able to save the file as PDF/A-

Kind regards,
Stefan
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by DIV »

Willy Van Nuffel wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 1:26 pm MS-Office Toolbar Add-in - incl. Add-in for Word - is Part of the PDF-XChange Standard Printer:
https://www.pdf-xchange.com/produc ... 9/features
Thanks, Willy.
If it's an important feature, perhaps Tracker should consider adding it to their product comparison chart.
—DIV
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Zilla SLab version 1.001 compared to version 1.002

Post by DIV »

Tracker Supp-Stefan wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 1:38 pm Is there any difference (visually) between the TTF I used and the OT on your end?
I've been trying to figure out how I can compare the appearances of the font family in the two formats. Obviously the OTF and TTF variants are going to look similar, unless something has become horribly corrupted. But to find subtle differences may need either side-by-side comparison or overlay comparison. And when I install a new variant or version, I cannot keep the old one — unless, AFAIK, I can embed it into a PDF file (which, of course, in this case I cannot!). Or unless I go in and manually change the name within the files, which I am not keen to do.

Anyway, I eventually realised that it might be feasible to take screenshots. Please see below.
  • "TrueType Outlines" means it is the TTF variant.
  • "PostScript Outlines" means it is the OTF variant (with [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenType#Description]CFF[/url]-based contours).
Two variants from version 1.001.
The two formats appear to be pretty similar in version 1.001, but
  • line spacing may be slightly different, and
  • (at small sizes) the OTF variant looks heavier — at least on screen.
image.png
image(1).png
Two variants from version 1.002.
The two formats likewise appear to be pretty similar in version 1.002, but
  • line spacing may be slightly different,
  • (at small sizes) the OTF variant looks heavier — at least on screen, and
  • the kerning may be slightly different ("N" & "O" and "6" & "7" appear further apart for the TTF variant).
image(2).png
image(3).png
Given the apparent kerning difference between TTF and OTF only arises in version 1.002, there is hence also an apparent difference in kerning between version 1.001 and version 1.002. Specifically the "N" & "O" and "6" & "7" appear further apart in the TTF variant in version 1.002 (all other three screenshots appear to have identical kerning).

—DIV

P.S. Differences in appearance, especially for small sizes, might be due to differences in [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font_hinting]hinting[/url], rather than the actual glyph contours.

P.P.S. Here is the complete set of version 1.002 Zilla Slab fonts (from GitHub):
fnt_Zilla-Slab_Fonts_v1-002.zip
(3.92 MiB) Downloaded 112 times
Last edited by DIV on Thu Jun 01, 2023 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Willy Van Nuffel
User
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:10 pm

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by Willy Van Nuffel »

DIV wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 1:59 am If it's an important feature, perhaps Tracker should consider adding it to their product comparison chart.
Maybe a little bit lost in that large number of features, but it is already there.

Kind regards.
>
PDF-XChange comparison chart.png
User avatar
Tracker Supp-Stefan
Site Admin
Posts: 18124
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:07 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by Tracker Supp-Stefan »

Hello Willy Van Nuffel, DIV,

Yes - the text hinting at the smaller font sizes is most likely the 'villain' that causes the differences - and each application will have it's own rendering engine (us included) that will handle that hinting and the overall letter appearance in it's own way.

So if the larger sizes look identical for you - I propose that you do install the TTF version of the font and see if you can then convert your files to PDF/A on your machine as I expect you would be able to!

Kind regards,
Stefan
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by DIV »

Willy Van Nuffel wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 6:38 am Maybe a little bit lost in that large number of features, but it is already there.
Ah. Thank-you, Willy.
My mistake was that after doing a cursory skim up and down and not noticing it, I searched for "Word", because it had been described as an add-in for Word.
Mystery solved ;-)
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Zilla Slab version 1.002 OTF

Post by DIV »

As a precursor to trying a TTF variant, I wanted to check version 1.002 of the OTF format.

Characteristics of version 1.002 of the font in OTF format
Just as with version 1.001, there appear to be missing characters/glyphs.
image.png
What I hadn't noticed in version 1.001 of the OTF format (although I presume it occurred there too) was that there are also some characters that show up as blank (U+0080 to U+00A0); functionally they seem to operate as spaces. Having a name of "Undefined" for a character (see screenshot) is quirky/worrisome (all but the last are "[url=https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0080.pdf]C1 controls[/url]").
image(1).png

Attempting to embed version 1.002 of the Zilla Slab font in OTF format had the same problems as for version 1.001 of that font in OTF format (as reported above).

Revised sample Word document
I revised the test file for two reasons: (i) the name of "Zilla Slab Regular" was changed to "Zilla Slab"; and (ii) I included some text with background-shading, because I'd noticed on my original document that there were further issues with it if I asked Word to export as PDF/A.
PDF_test_embedding_4.docx.zip
(145.16 KiB) Downloaded 92 times
Outcomes of Export to PDF from Word
Here are three outputs from MS Word's native/built-in engine.

Without PDF/A and without ticking "Bitmap text when fonts may not be embedded" — the text is selectable, and marked as various forms of ZillaSlab, but while other fonts are embedded (e.g. ArialUnicodeMS), none of the ZillaSlab fonts are; the background shading is correct.
PDF_test_embedding_4.Word-noPDFA-noBMP.pdf
(156.83 KiB) Downloaded 84 times
Without PDF/A but with ticking "Bitmap text when fonts may not be embedded" — the text is converted to an image, and so it's not selectable and not marked as any form of ZillaSlab; the background shading is correct.
PDF_test_embedding_4.Word-noPDFA-BMP.pdf
(200.08 KiB) Downloaded 111 times
With PDF/A, for which (automatically) "Bitmap text when fonts may not be embedded" becomes ticked — the text is converted to an image, and so it's not selectable and not marked as any form of ZillaSlab; the background shading is wrong.
PDF_test_embedding_4.Word-PDFA-BMP.pdf
(296.93 KiB) Downloaded 101 times
Outcome of Save As PDF/A in Editor
I tried to use Editor to embed the fonts into the PDF produced by Word (the PDF file without PDF/A and without bitmapping, as above).
In short, it didn't work. The same sorts of errors as seen before were reported (see screenshots below).
image(2).png
image(3).png
...
TTF format to be tried next.

—DIV

P.S. In this sample file I don't believe I have used any unusual characters (only a few control characters, like tab, bullet, and perhaps some sort of carriage-return/new-line). Even if glyphs are missing for some characters in the font, if I haven't used those problematic characters it'd be good for Editor to still be able to embed the relevant subset.
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Zilla Slab version 1.001 TTF

Post by DIV »

Following is the result of my testing of version 1.001 of the TTF format.

Characteristics of version 1.001 of the font in TTF format
Unlike the OTF format (versions 1.001 & 1.002) there were no missing characters/glyphs evident.
image.png
image(1).png
image(2).png
Attempting to embed version 1.001 of the Zilla Slab font in TTF format was essentially successful!
It did not have the same problems as for versions 1.001 & 1.002 of that font in OTF format (as reported above).
However, the appearance was not identical (on screen, with moderately sized text) to the output using OTF format.

Revised sample Word document
I had to modify the test file again: (i) the name of "Zilla Slab" was changed back to "Zilla Slab Regular"; and (ii) the background-shading was retained.
PDF_test_embedding_4_v1-001.docx.zip
(685.08 KiB) Downloaded 102 times
Outcomes of Export to PDF from Word
Here are three outputs from MS Word's native/built-in engine. In short, they all seem to have an identical appearance to one another (but not the same as the exports using OTF).

Without PDF/A and without ticking "Bitmap text when fonts may not be embedded" — the text is selectable, marked as various forms of ZillaSlab, and embedded (a total of 17 fonts are embedded); the background shading is correct.
PDF_test_embedding_4.TTF_1-001.Word-noPDFA-noBMP.pdf
(316.76 KiB) Downloaded 89 times
Without PDF/A but with ticking "Bitmap text when fonts may not be embedded" — the text is selectable, marked as various forms of ZillaSlab, and embedded (a total of 17 fonts are embedded); the background shading is correct.
PDF_test_embedding_4.TTF_1-001.Word-noPDFA-BMP.pdf
(316.76 KiB) Downloaded 89 times
With PDF/A, for which (automatically) "Bitmap text when fonts may not be embedded" becomes ticked — the text is selectable, marked as various forms of ZillaSlab, and embedded (a total of 17 fonts are embedded); the background shading is correct.
PDF_test_embedding_4.TTF_1-001.Word-PDFA-BMP.pdf
(343.14 KiB) Downloaded 89 times
(Continued in next post, as I have hit a limit on the number of attachments!)
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Zilla Slab version 1.001 TTF

Post by DIV »

Outcomes of Export to PDF from Word
(Continued from previous post, as I hit a limit on the number of attachments!)

Although these three outputs from MS Word's native/built-in engine all seem to have an identical appearance to one another, the visual appearance is not identical to the exports using OTF (comparison made using the bitmapped font).
TTF version 1.001 (embedded):
image.png
image(1).png
OTF version 1.002 (bitmapped):
image(2).png
image(3).png
Admittedly the differences are subtle. It's easiest to spot the differences when toggling quickly back and forth between the two screenshots. The most noteworthy differences are:
  • the bold and bold-italic text in Zilla Slab Regular has narrower characters in the v1.001 TTF-based PDF/A, compared to the v1.002 OTF-based PDF/A; and
  • the bold-italic text in Zilla Slab Light has narrower & heavier characters in the v1.001 TTF-based PDF/A, compared to the v1.002 OTF-based PDF/A.
Outcome of Save As PDF/A in Editor
I tried to use Editor to embed the fonts into a PDF produced by Word (the PDF file "PDF_test_embedding_3.pdf" without PDF/A and without bitmapping, which doesn't have any Zilla Slab fonts embedded, as per my post of Fri May 26, 2023 11:03 pm). For convenience, I repost it below.
PDF_test_embedding_3.docx.zip
(144.88 KiB) Downloaded 89 times
In short, it generally worked (this largely replicated the experience described by Stefan on Sat May 27, 2023 12:18 am) ...
image(4).png
PDF_test_embedding_3.Editor-PDFA2b-Embed-noRaster.pdf
(179.02 KiB) Downloaded 110 times
... the appearance is identical to that of the PDF/A produced by Stefan, also using v1.001 of the TTF font files ...
...but the visual look is not identical to the other PDF files I produced:
image(5).png
image(6).png
The most noteworthy differences are:
  • the bold and bold-italic text in Zilla Slab Regular has much wider characters in the TTF-based PDF/A built by Editor from the PDF built by Word, compared to both the v1.001 TTF-based & v1.002 OTF-based PDF/A files built by Word; and
  • the bold-italic text in Zilla Slab Light in the TTF-based PDF/A built by Editor from the PDF built by Word has wider characters compared to the v1.001 TTF-based PDF/A files built by Word and has heavier characters compared to the v1.002 OTF-based PDF/A files built by Word — in short, this text appears to have the correct width but is too heavy.
—DIV
Last edited by DIV on Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Zilla Slab version 1.002 TTF

Post by DIV »

A quick investigation indicated that there isn't much difference in appearance or behaviour between versions 1.001 and 1.002 of the TTF variants of Zilla Slab font family.
PDF_test_embedding_4.TTF_1-002.Word-PDFA-BMP.pdf
(343.13 KiB) Downloaded 100 times
However, notably there are slight differences in character spacing for the bold-italic text set in SemiBold and Light.
image(1).png
image.png
Specifically, the character spacing in the v1.002 TTF-based PDF/A is slightly narrower — meaning that it is even more different to the v1.002 OTF-based PDF/A than the v1.001 TTF-based PDF/A was.

—DIV
User avatar
TrackerSupp-Daniel
Site Admin
Posts: 8813
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:52 pm

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by TrackerSupp-Daniel »

Hello, DIV

I am not quite sure what to offer here. PDF/A has some fairly strict requirements which we do need to adhere to, or else the document would not be configured properly for "Archival". If a new version of the font does not match the requirements, than I am afraid that new version of the font cannot be used. It is not something we can change on our end, and you may need to reach out to the font creator to ask them if they have a more complete version with the updated formatting, or if perhaps they are still working on it.

It is also very much worth noting that Ms Word, and most other modern MS Office apps offer a type of "font emulation" which allows them to create pseudo fonts on the fly by modifying existing font data. For the purpose of embedding, only the original font is present and the document has flags showing any other versions of word that this emulation is to take place. As an example, many fonts do not offer a "light" form, some do not even offer italic, or "semi-bold" options yet word tries to offer those for most of them. This causes comparison issues like you are seeing with the conversion to PDF, as we do not offer quite as robust a method, and we can only embed the original font data, not the emulated information alongside it.

In short, this is a feature incompatibility between MS Word's own font handling, and PDF/A's font management requirements, which can only be bridged by the font itself, there is very little we can offer here.

Kind regards,
Dan McIntyre - Support Technician
Tracker Software Products (Canada) LTD

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Our Web site domain and email address has changed as of 26/10/2023.
https://www.pdf-xchange.com
Support@pdf-xchange.com
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by DIV »

Hello, Daniel.

I don't think that this has anything to do with font emulation within Word. There are many instances where that occurs — usually without the user being aware of it.
For instance, Times New Roman has no support for Korean characters. In such cases applications such as Word identify the Unicode characters and then either show nothing or a 'not defined' symbol, or else they automatically render them using glyphs from another (preferably similar-looking) font that does support those characters.
PDF_test_embedding_4_v1-001.docx.zip
(685.08 KiB) Downloaded 109 times
PDF_test_embedding_5.Word-noPDFA-noBMP.pdf
(107.39 KiB) Downloaded 110 times
(N.B. I don't know how to test which fonts Editor would embed, because even using Save as Optimized with "Unembed all fonts" did not remove the embedded subsets.)

This is not about a new "version" of the font. There is almost identical behaviour of versions 1.001 and 1.002 (the only versions available, AFAIK). The distinction is between the TTF and OTF formats.

As I mentioned, firstly I would like to confirm whether others can reproduce this defective behaviour when using the OTF format of this font.

Secondly, I would like to know the 'mechanics' of why it is occurring.
Yes, I think there may be some defect in the OTF format of this font. But if the defect relates to characters that I am not using, then I feel that Editor should be capable of essentially ignoring the defect and embedding the defect-free characters (as a subset of the font) into a PDF file in PDF/A format.

Thirdly, given that this is a public forum, other participants may be aware of some simple steps to 'fix' the OTF-format defect(s) using software such as FontCreator.

—DIV
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by DIV »

The fundamental problem of embedding the font is not being created by MS Word.

For example, if I create a brand new PDF file from scratch within Editor as follows:
File > New Document > With Blank Pages
Home > Add > Add text
[type some text]
[select all text]
Format > Font
[set to a Zilla Slab font]

Initially the PDF information shows that the Zilla Slab font is "used" in the document (but not embedded).
But if I try to export it as PDF/A, it gets exported as Arial (embedded subset).
Alternatively, if I close and then reopen the original PDF file, it opens with zero fonts "used" in the document! Presumably by default, Editor then displays this as Arial.
(This testing was conducted with v1.001 of the OTF-format files, testing separately Zilla Slab Regular and Zilla Slab Medium; no bold, no italic.)

Sample files attached.
PDF_test_embedding_6.pdf
(4.35 KiB) Downloaded 102 times
In conclusion: the problem reported is not inherently related to MS Word. The problem is evident in the interaction of Editor with this font (OTF-format, in either of the available versions, i.e. 1.001 or 1.002).

—DIV

P.S. The issues of different rendering of the various files (different versions and different formats) are a secondary concern, which is worth investigating, but at a lower priority to the embedding problem. The reason is that different font files are allowed to look slightly different, and that's OK if the user is free to use any of them (under the condition that each of them can be successfully embedded).
User avatar
TrackerSupp-Daniel
Site Admin
Posts: 8813
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:52 pm

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by TrackerSupp-Daniel »

Hello, DIV

Sorry if I made this unclear, I was not trying to imply that there was any issue with Word itself, just clarifying that word will allow you to use font appearances which do not actually exist within the font set itself, which can cause the changing appearance issue you are seeing when converting to PDF. Likewise, PDF/A requires that any font types in use are present and included in the font character set itself, to be embedded.
So what I was meaning to say is that the root cause of your inability to convert to PDF/A with the OTF font, is within the font itself. As you have shown, the OTF font had missing glyphs, which would cause the errors you saw attempting to embed that font that prevented you from doing so.
Conversely, the difference in appearance with the TTF font you showcase later on, is indeed just a difference in how Word and the Editor handle additional formatting, and font emulation. Not a "problem" caused by word, indeed, but nor is it a problem caused by our Editor, it is simply that we do not offer as robust a system as Word does. We are working to improve how we handle fonts for the future, but at this time, all I can say is that this is not entirely unexpected if the font does not offer all of these different appearance sets natively.

Kind regards,
Dan McIntyre - Support Technician
Tracker Software Products (Canada) LTD

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Our Web site domain and email address has changed as of 26/10/2023.
https://www.pdf-xchange.com
Support@pdf-xchange.com
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by DIV »

TrackerSupp-Daniel wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:20 pm As you have shown, the OTF font had missing glyphs, which would cause the errors you saw attempting to embed that font that prevented you from doing so.
Hi, Daniel.

I looked at the difference in appearance of text when using different formats & variants of the Zilla Slab fonts because (i) this was a query raised by Stefan, and (ii) it's important in considering the TTF files as an option to know how the document's appearance will be affected (if at all).
I'm less concerned about the subtle emulation differences between Word and Editor, and I'm not entirely sure that they completely explain the differences in visual output between TTF and OTF variants, and also the different version numbers. However, I will say that I can imagine that these applications may not necessarily be set up to handle more than two font weights.
RFE: ideally, what should happen if the user marks the the Zilla Slab Light text as "bold" is that the system or application should (i) recognise that there is no "Zilla Slab Light Bold" font, and then (ii) search for the immediate next heavier weight of installed fonts from the same font family, which would be Zilla Slab Regular; only if no such heavier installed font in the same family is found (e.g. there's no font heavier than SemiBold in this family) should the system or application resort to either (iii) emulating a bolder version or else not changing the weight. In the first instance, the user would see the text rendered as Zilla Slab Regular, but marked as Zilla Slab Light with "bold" toggled on within the application. And so on. (Or if you wanted to completely revamp things, you could change to two controls to increase-font-weight and decrease-font-weight — which would probably be unintuitive for most users, however.)

As I mentioned, I can understand the process failing if I were to write text that contains characters for which there is no glyph specified: Korean or Chinese text, for example. (Although if anything is being displayed on screen, then the application or system must be using a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallback_font]fallback font[/url], in which case an alternative would be to embed the fallback font, or a subset thereof — optionally with a notification to the user.
But how is it that I cannot get the font to even remain "in use" — let along be embedded — in the testing process described in my last post, which is purely using Editor to create a PDF file from scratch, and in which AFAIK the text includes only simple characters (alphabetical, punctuation, and space) for which glyphs are specified within the Zilla Slab fonts. Couldn't Editor just ignore the hypothetical prospect of problems with characters that are not required in the actual text, and instead embed only the glyphs for the characters in use as a subset?

—DIV
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by DIV »

In further investigation, I have determined that — as far as the errors arising in Editor are concerned — this it is actually
  • not an inherent problem with OTF particularly,
  • nor with glyphs being unmapped per se,
  • nor the use of cubic CFF ("PostScript") outlines,
because I can successfully embed Courier Std into a PDF file using Editor (but not Word), whereas Courier Std is an OTF font containing CFF outlines and characters without mapped glyphs — as is the case for the Zilla SLab *.OTF files.
image.png
PDF_test_embedding_7.docx.zip
(118.14 KiB) Downloaded 93 times
PDF_test_embedding_7.Word-noPDFA-noBMP.pdf
(118.33 KiB) Downloaded 107 times
image(1).png
Even when exporting as PDF/A, Word is not embedding Courier Std either. Instead it is rasterising the characters into bitmap images (visually evident in the disruption of the background shading).
PDF_test_embedding_7.Word-PDFA-BMP.pdf
(193.64 KiB) Downloaded 92 times
—DIV
nakaru006
User
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:46 am

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by nakaru006 »

I know it's far beyond the solution date, but I did figure out something *possibly* related to the problem.

I too am using Scribus to make a book, and I only used two fonts: Arial, and URW Gothic which is not a True Type Font (it's a Type 1 vector based font).

Even when I embedded the fonts for sure in Scribus when exporting to PDF, somehow URW Gothic would not embed correctly. I would open it up in a browser and it would be replaced with something else, which makes me think that either

there is something wrong with the way Scribus exports PDFs and embeds fonts,

Type 1 Vector fonts although embedded do not register correctly as "real" fonts in the PDF format

Although Type 1 Vector based fonts meet all the criteria for embedding, there isn't correct enough data included in the embedding (I may have had limited character set in the document, perhaps?)

What I did to fix the problem was to make the parts where I used URW Gothic (mostly as page headers) and created transparent PNGs instead and inserted them into the correct locations in my document. That way Arial was the only embedded font and it was a TTF.

That actually made the document pass validation over at IngramSpark, and should print with no issues (we're waiting on proofs now).

I guess you could do more testing upon what I've found? Were you using a non-TTF font in your document?

I should also mention that I'm pretty sure I exported it was a PDF X1-A I think, so really this whole font mess/glyph mess shouldn't have been a problem, but here we are I guess.
[URL="https://pikashow.fyi/"]pikashow[/URL]
[URL="https://ppssppgold.one/"]ppsspp emulator[/URL]
Last edited by nakaru006 on Fri Jun 16, 2023 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Tracker Supp-Stefan
Site Admin
Posts: 18124
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:07 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by Tracker Supp-Stefan »

Hello nakaru006,

Type1 fonts are rather old - and if you have a more modern variant of your font to use - that should then embed properly.

@DIV - so it seems like the issue is with the specific font in question that you have the OTF variant of? Did you do tests with the TTF version and do these embed properly for you? I now know that OTF are newer than TTF fonts - so maybe there is something we do not quite support in that problematic one, however I think it's more likely that the particular font itself is the problem as you've had good tries with other ones.
Please do let us know if you think we can assist with this topic further!

Kind regards,
Stefan
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by DIV »

Hi, Stefan.

It does seem to be something particular to this font — or perhaps some features included in this font that aren't necessarily included in all OTF fonts.

I am still digging in to this.
I have reported some issues on GitHub, and also sought help at the FontCreator forum.

Despite the first link, I was able to embed TTF variants.
Despite my difficulties, in the second link it's claimed that "technically the font is just fine".

I would like to check whether others are able to reproduce this behaviour with Editor using the OTF files (if not, it could be something particular to my computer system).
If the behaviour can be reproduced, I'd like for your developers to investigate the underlying problem, because the error messages regarding "missing glyphs" may not be telling the full story!

—DIV
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by DIV »

OK, after spending a heck of a lot of time on this, I think I have figured it out. (Although I've been wrong before, so who knows‽)

The long and the short of it is that it seems to have been a minor inconsistency in the source files where the VendorID ("TPTQ", representing Typotheque) was specified for only some fonts within the Zilla Slab family (4 out of the total of 12 files), and SOMEHOW this meant that those font files missing the VendorID were AUTOMATICALLY identified as not being embeddable!!!
I have logged this as an [url=https://github.com/mozilla/zilla-slab/issues/48]issue on the Zilla Slab GitHub project page[/url].

I have used FontCreator to modify the v1.002 OTF files in the following ways:
  1. Set embeddability to "Installable (no embedding restrictions)"
  2. Added the VendorID (where missing)
  3. Set most of the PANOSE data (e.g. 2-6-6-3-4-0-0-0-10-3 for Medium weight)
  4. Set the Class to "Slab Serifs"
I then saved the fonts out in new files (with modified file names), deleted the original files from the system Fonts folder, and installed (copied in) my modified files.
Hence I was able to finally embed the Zilla Slab fonts using a workflow of: Word document > export PDF using Word's engine without embedding > use Editor to embed fonts by saving as PDF/A

I haven't tested it, but I expect that actually change (i) was all that was required to address the immediate cause of the problem embedding fonts. Note that I do not condone circumventing copyright! Until otherwise advised, I surmise that this prohibition on embedding the font was a completely unintentional glitch, an unexpected artefact of the accidental omission of the VendorID.

Change (ii) addresses the underlying problem of missing VendorID in the font source files, but probably would not directly affect embedding.

Changes (iii) and (iv) I don't think would affect embedding, but as I was modifying the font anyway I figured I'd make those amendments too. I can't claim that the PANOSE data are perfect, but they should be at least close to correct.
image.png
image(1).png
What does this mean as far as Editor goes?
It now seems that, in hindsight:
  • The error messages produced by Editor were misleading.
  • The embedding problem was not due to missing glyphs!
  • The embedding problem was due to an (accidental) prohibition on embedding some of the fonts within the family.

If my current analysis is correct, then it would be most helpful for your development team to improve the error messages to be more informative as to the true underlying cause of the problem.


N.B. I'm not trying to yell, it's just that this thread became very long, and I wouldn't want a key message to get lost amongst it all ;-)
User avatar
TrackerSupp-Daniel
Site Admin
Posts: 8813
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:52 pm

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by TrackerSupp-Daniel »

Hello, DIV

Thank you for the in depth investigation. I have passed this info along to the dev team, I am sure they will very muchly appreciate the effort you've put in here. I cannot make any promises for changes at this time, only that it will be looked at, but hopefully something can be done in this area.

Kind regards,
Dan McIntyre - Support Technician
Tracker Software Products (Canada) LTD

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Our Web site domain and email address has changed as of 26/10/2023.
https://www.pdf-xchange.com
Support@pdf-xchange.com
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by DIV »

Thanks, Daniel.

By the way, there is one more thing that it would be good to clarify.

It seems that a font file can set four different levels of use permission, by stipulation of the font's [url=https://www.high-logic.com/fontcreator/manual14/fontproperties-font.html]Embedding Licensing Rights[/url]:
  1. Installable (no embedding restrictions)
  2. Editable (read-write)
  3. Preview & Print (read-only)
  4. Restricted (embedding is not allowed)
Choices a, b and d are clear enough.
Option c requires: "Fonts [...] may be embedded [...] but [...] [the] document [...] must only be opened “read-only;” the application must not allow the user to edit the document; it can only be viewed and/or printed."

In the process of installing various versions of the Zilla Slab font family I discovered that MS Word indeed seems to respect this: I was able to embed the requisite Zilla Slab fonts into a *.DOCX file. If a user opens the document with the same requisite fonts installed on their system, then Word allows the document to be edited. If a user opens the document without the same requisite fonts installed on their system, then Word does not allow the document to be edited — unless the document recipient agrees to remove the restricted fonts from the DOCX file (see [url=https://github.com/mozilla/zilla-slab/issues/48#issuecomment-1578716135]screenshot[/url]).

I am curious about how that would work with PDF files. Generally PDF files can be edited unless someone (e.g. the author) has imposed restrictions, typically with password protection. Even if Editor (and Acrobat, etc.) refused to embed "Preview & Print" fonts unless the author locks the PDF file to prevent editing the text, that still wouldn't be enough to ensure full compliance: that would require recipients opening the PDF file to be prevented from unlocking the PDF unless they have the requisite font(s) installed on their own system — even if they have the correct password. I am not aware that such functionality currently exists.

So I am thinking that perhaps due to the difficulty of policing the read-only status of PDF files, Editor might have been set up to simply refuse to embed "Preview & Print (read-only)" fonts, and in practice treats them as "Restricted (embedding is not allowed)".
Is that correct?
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by DIV »

Tracker Supp-Stefan wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 12:52 pm I now know that OTF are newer than TTF fonts
It's been time-consuming, but I've learned quite a bit myself in the process.

It turns out that *.OTF files are something like a 'container' (vaguely analogous to *.AVI video files) in that they can contain data (character contours) specified in either of two formats, viz. quadratic "TTF" or cubic "CFF" (PostScript). As I mentioned previously, the Zilla Slab *.OTF font files use the CFF format.

The old *.TTF files included only basic features. But what I didn't realise is that it's also acceptable for OpenType font files containing TTF character outlines to be named *.TTF !! The latter applies to the Zilla Slab *.TTF font files, which include advanced (OpenType) features while using the TTF format for character outlines.

Although — hooray! — Editor is able to embed any of those varieties of fonts (TTF files, OTF files with TTF outlines, and OTF files with CFF outlines), Word cannot embed fonts that use cubic "CFF" (PostScript) outlines — boo-hoo!.
https://forum.high-logic.com/viewtopic.php?p=48758#p48758
This information may help others encountering behaviour that they didn't expect while trying to embed fonts into a PDF file.

—DIV

Actually there are additionally a couple of other rarely encountered possibilities. See https://www.high-logic.com/font-editor/fontcreator/tutorials/the-difference-between-truetype-and-opentype-fonts
User avatar
Tracker Supp-Stefan
Site Admin
Posts: 18124
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:07 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by Tracker Supp-Stefan »

Hello DIV,

I also learned more about fonts myself! Happy that you found a solution in our products and word being word - is beyond our ability to assist :)
Hope this whole discussion is useful to others as well!

Kind regards,
Stefan
DIV
User
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 am

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by DIV »

Tracker Supp-Stefan wrote: Wed May 31, 2023 3:46 pm Yes - the text hinting at the smaller font sizes is most likely the 'villain' that causes the differences - and each application will have it's own rendering engine (us included) that will handle that hinting and the overall letter appearance in it's own way.
Just noticed this from [url=https://www.high-logic.com/fontcreator/manual15/exportafont.html?q=CFF+hinting] FontCreator's help [/url] :
"Note: Hinting is not available for CFF outlines"
User avatar
Tracker Supp-Stefan
Site Admin
Posts: 18124
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:07 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Problem embedding font with "missing glyph"

Post by Tracker Supp-Stefan »

Hello DIV,

Thanks for finding and sharing this!

Kind regards,
Stefan
Post Reply