PostScript fonts in MsOffice 2007

This might be a case of font substitution. If you are using PostScript
fonts, it sometimes happens that the font you want to use does not have the
glyphs in the range you want to use (e.g. might have English and Hebrew but
lack Cyrillic). To get around this, you must install and use fonts that have
the range you need. Things are usually better if you stick to TrueType,
Unicode fonts.

Hope this helps.

Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Post by Dimitar Gyoshev
Dear Mr.Tom Ferguson,
I recently read your comments on the MS site - Subject: PostScript fonts &
XP-Pro. And found them very comprehensive!
I have installed MsOffice 2007 on WIndows XP replacing Office 2003.
When I am using 'Gill Sans Cyr MT' font ( PostScript) in theWord and Excel
docs. I have the following problem with formatting.
When I type in English this font is appear correctly ( means no problems)
but when I switch to Cyrillic alphabet the font automatically changes to
Times New Roman ( only Cyrillic part I mean) . When I want to format it ,
selecting the text , pointing the request font Gill.... In the "Change the
Font face" window - nothing happened . The font stay Times New...! Only using
'Format Painter' solve my problem ( taking the format from Latin (English)
part.),BUT THIS IS NOT THE BEST SOLUTION .When I used Office 2003 every think
worked perfectly , now with 2007 doesn't. The same problem occur on my
college's PC ( the same installation) .
Can you advice me please how I can solve this issue?
Regards,
Dimitar Gyoshev

Tom Ferguson

2007-11-27 17:09:54 UTC

Sorry, trying to do too many things at once. Let me re-write to
reflect what I meant more clearly.

This might be a case of font substitution. If you are using Open Type
fonts (whether they contain PostScript or TrueType outline data), it
sometimes happens that the font you want to use does not have the
glyphs in the range you want to use (e.g. might have English and Hebrew but
lack Cyrillic). To get around this, you must install and use fonts that
have
the range you need. Matters become more complex if you are using older,
non-Unicode, either TT or PS, fonts. Things are usually better if you stick
to OT with TT data, Unicode fonts.

Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007
{Snip}

Character

2007-11-27 18:24:25 UTC

Post by Tom Ferguson
Sorry, trying to do too many things at once. Let me re-write to
reflect what I meant more clearly.
This might be a case of font substitution. If you are using Open Type
fonts (whether they contain PostScript or TrueType outline data), it
sometimes happens that the font you want to use does not have the
glyphs in the range you want to use (e.g. might have English and Hebrew but
lack Cyrillic). To get around this, you must install and use fonts that have
the range you need. Matters become more complex if you are using older,
non-Unicode, either TT or PS, fonts. Things are usually better if you stick
to OT with TT data, Unicode fonts.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007
{Snip}

Glad you clarified! This one makes a lot more sense :)

Why do you say that things are usually better with OT fonts with TT
data than OT with PS data? Unless I'm missing something, the only
difference is whether or not any of the outlines have 3rd degree
curves, in which case the font must be a PS flavor. Things like
unicode compliance and OT feature sets are independent of the OT
flavor and can be equally good or bad.

- Character

Tom Ferguson

2007-11-27 21:43:30 UTC

The preference I have for those with TT data -vs- PS data has nothing to do
with the quality of the data but with the set of glyphs present. Those with
TT data tend to have better language coverage. There is no technical reason
why that should be so, it is just the present state. It is my impression
that the OT fonts with PS data were produced by little more than placing a
wrapper around the PS font, so to speak. No doubt that will change as
various foundries issue updates and new fonts in that format.

Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Glad you clarified! This one makes a lot more sense :)
Why do you say that things are usually better with OT fonts with TT data
than OT with PS data? Unless I'm missing something, the only difference is
whether or not any of the outlines have 3rd degree curves, in which case
the font must be a PS flavor. Things like unicode compliance and OT
feature sets are independent of the OT flavor and can be equally good or
bad.
- Character

Character

2007-11-27 22:09:27 UTC

Post by Tom Ferguson
The preference I have for those with TT data -vs- PS data has nothing to
do with the quality of the data but with the set of glyphs present.
Those with TT data tend to have better language coverage. There is no
technical reason why that should be so, it is just the present state. It
is my impression that the OT fonts with PS data were produced by little
more than placing a wrapper around the PS font, so to speak. No doubt
that will change as various foundries issue updates and new fonts in
that format.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Yes, some OT font files that are floating around are nothing more than
someone (including the original foundry) simply saving it as OT
instead of TT or PS. Because TT fonts could already have a larger
glyph set than T1 fonts, those sets are carried forward.

But I think that you're basing your comments on a somewhat limited sample.

In particular, the all-new Adobe Pro series, now out for a couple of
years, have the most extensive glyph sets and open type features of
anything available.

Microsoft's TT-based OT fonts appear to have broader language
coverage, while Adobe's PS-based OT fonts have much greater
typographic support, with alternate glyphs, extended ligatures,
position-sensitive glyph selection, old-style figures, small caps, etc.

- Character

Tom Ferguson

2007-11-28 00:01:06 UTC

I agree that Microsoft has placed greater emphasis on cross-language support
as opposed to typographic niceties such as those you mention. Indeed, in
various conversations with folks in the MS typography department, I have
urged more attention to that for whatever small influence I might have. And,
of course, my opinion is based on my experience which, like yours and
anybody else's, is limited by definition. ;-) But do recall that the OP's
issue had to do with language coverage.

However, you make fair observation/comment.

Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Post by Tom Ferguson
The preference I have for those with TT data -vs- PS data has nothing to
do with the quality of the data but with the set of glyphs present. Those
with TT data tend to have better language coverage. There is no technical
reason why that should be so, it is just the present state. It is my
impression that the OT fonts with PS data were produced by little more
than placing a wrapper around the PS font, so to speak. No doubt that
will change as various foundries issue updates and new fonts in that
format.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Yes, some OT font files that are floating around are nothing more than
someone (including the original foundry) simply saving it as OT instead of
TT or PS. Because TT fonts could already have a larger glyph set than T1
fonts, those sets are carried forward.
But I think that you're basing your comments on a somewhat limited sample.
In particular, the all-new Adobe Pro series, now out for a couple of
years, have the most extensive glyph sets and open type features of
anything available.
Microsoft's TT-based OT fonts appear to have broader language coverage,
while Adobe's PS-based OT fonts have much greater typographic support,
with alternate glyphs, extended ligatures, position-sensitive glyph
selection, old-style figures, small caps, etc.
- Character

Dimitar Gyoshev

2007-11-28 03:08:01 UTC

Gentlemen,

Your discussion is very interesting but you whent in another directory too
far away from my question!

Just for clarification my simple question is over the Office 2007 and usage
of PostScript font Gill Sans Cyr MT.
1. This is our Company font !
2. This font allready worked under Office 2003 !
3. Cirllic is available in this font !
4. I will repeit the question again
" When I type in English this font is appear correctly ( means no problems)
but when I switch to Cyrillic alphabet the font automatically changes to
Times New Roman with Cirillic letters (only Cyrillic part I mean) . When I
want to format it , selecting the text , pointing the request font Gill Sans
Cyr MT In the roll own menu "Change the Font face" window - nothing happened
. The font stay 'Times New..'.! Only using 'Format Painter' solve my problem
(taking the format from Latin (English) part.),BUT THIS IS NOT THE BEST
SOLUTION .When I used Office 2003 every think worked perfectly!!! , now with
2007 doesn't. The same problem occur on my college's PC ( the same
installation) .

This is the question not what is the different betwin TT and PS fonts!
--
Dimitar Gyoshev

Post by Tom Ferguson
I agree that Microsoft has placed greater emphasis on cross-language support
as opposed to typographic niceties such as those you mention. Indeed, in
various conversations with folks in the MS typography department, I have
urged more attention to that for whatever small influence I might have. And,
of course, my opinion is based on my experience which, like yours and
anybody else's, is limited by definition. ;-) But do recall that the OP's
issue had to do with language coverage.
However, you make fair observation/comment.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Post by Tom Ferguson
The preference I have for those with TT data -vs- PS data has nothing to
do with the quality of the data but with the set of glyphs present. Those
with TT data tend to have better language coverage. There is no technical
reason why that should be so, it is just the present state. It is my
impression that the OT fonts with PS data were produced by little more
than placing a wrapper around the PS font, so to speak. No doubt that
will change as various foundries issue updates and new fonts in that
format.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Yes, some OT font files that are floating around are nothing more than
someone (including the original foundry) simply saving it as OT instead of
TT or PS. Because TT fonts could already have a larger glyph set than T1
fonts, those sets are carried forward.
But I think that you're basing your comments on a somewhat limited sample.
In particular, the all-new Adobe Pro series, now out for a couple of
years, have the most extensive glyph sets and open type features of
anything available.
Microsoft's TT-based OT fonts appear to have broader language coverage,
while Adobe's PS-based OT fonts have much greater typographic support,
with alternate glyphs, extended ligatures, position-sensitive glyph
selection, old-style figures, small caps, etc.
- Character

Tom Ferguson

2007-11-28 06:45:41 UTC

Sorry, we did drift quite far from the centre of your question.

I am quite puzzled. I have very little experience using anything but
English, and a bit of French and a few sentences of Gaelic. I have sent off
a query and am doing some checking. I'll get back to you here.

Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Post by Dimitar Gyoshev
Gentlemen,
Your discussion is very interesting but you whent in another directory too
far away from my question!
Just for clarification my simple question is over the Office 2007 and usage
of PostScript font Gill Sans Cyr MT.
1. This is our Company font !
2. This font allready worked under Office 2003 !
3. Cirllic is available in this font !
4. I will repeit the question again
" When I type in English this font is appear correctly ( means no problems)
but when I switch to Cyrillic alphabet the font automatically changes to
Times New Roman with Cirillic letters (only Cyrillic part I mean) . When I
want to format it , selecting the text , pointing the request font Gill Sans
Cyr MT In the roll own menu "Change the Font face" window - nothing happened
. The font stay 'Times New..'.! Only using 'Format Painter' solve my problem
(taking the format from Latin (English) part.),BUT THIS IS NOT THE BEST
SOLUTION .When I used Office 2003 every think worked perfectly!!! , now with
2007 doesn't. The same problem occur on my college's PC ( the same
installation) .
This is the question not what is the different betwin TT and PS fonts!
--
Dimitar Gyoshev

Post by Tom Ferguson
The preference I have for those with TT data -vs- PS data has nothing to
do with the quality of the data but with the set of glyphs present. Those
with TT data tend to have better language coverage. There is no technical
reason why that should be so, it is just the present state. It is my
impression that the OT fonts with PS data were produced by little more
than placing a wrapper around the PS font, so to speak. No doubt that
will change as various foundries issue updates and new fonts in that
format.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Yes, some OT font files that are floating around are nothing more than
someone (including the original foundry) simply saving it as OT instead of
TT or PS. Because TT fonts could already have a larger glyph set than T1
fonts, those sets are carried forward.
But I think that you're basing your comments on a somewhat limited sample.
In particular, the all-new Adobe Pro series, now out for a couple of
years, have the most extensive glyph sets and open type features of
anything available.
Microsoft's TT-based OT fonts appear to have broader language coverage,
while Adobe's PS-based OT fonts have much greater typographic support,
with alternate glyphs, extended ligatures, position-sensitive glyph
selection, old-style figures, small caps, etc.
- Character

Tom Ferguson

2007-11-29 00:41:34 UTC

Check your font directories and see if you have a TrueType version of Gill
Sans installed as well as a PostScript version. If you do, copy the TrueType
version to a different folder in order to back up the files and then delete
the TrueType files. Restart the computer. Test to see if the problem
remains.

Tom
MSMVP 19989-2007

Post by Tom Ferguson
The preference I have for those with TT data -vs- PS data has nothing to
do with the quality of the data but with the set of glyphs present. Those
with TT data tend to have better language coverage. There is no technical
reason why that should be so, it is just the present state. It is my
impression that the OT fonts with PS data were produced by little more
than placing a wrapper around the PS font, so to speak. No doubt that
will change as various foundries issue updates and new fonts in that
format.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Yes, some OT font files that are floating around are nothing more than
someone (including the original foundry) simply saving it as OT instead of
TT or PS. Because TT fonts could already have a larger glyph set than T1
fonts, those sets are carried forward.
But I think that you're basing your comments on a somewhat limited sample.
In particular, the all-new Adobe Pro series, now out for a couple of
years, have the most extensive glyph sets and open type features of
anything available.
Microsoft's TT-based OT fonts appear to have broader language coverage,
while Adobe's PS-based OT fonts have much greater typographic support,
with alternate glyphs, extended ligatures, position-sensitive glyph
selection, old-style figures, small caps, etc.
- Character

Tom Ferguson

2007-11-29 01:57:55 UTC

Post by Tom Ferguson
Check your font directories and see if you have a TrueType version of Gill
Sans installed as well as a PostScript version. If you do, copy the
TrueType version to a different folder in order to back up the files and
then delete the TrueType files

+++from the font folder+++

. Restart the computer. Test to see if the problem

Post by Tom Ferguson
remains.
Tom
MSMVP 19989-2007

Post by Tom Ferguson
The preference I have for those with TT data -vs- PS data has nothing to
do with the quality of the data but with the set of glyphs present. Those
with TT data tend to have better language coverage. There is no technical
reason why that should be so, it is just the present state. It is my
impression that the OT fonts with PS data were produced by little more
than placing a wrapper around the PS font, so to speak. No doubt that
will change as various foundries issue updates and new fonts in that
format.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Yes, some OT font files that are floating around are nothing more than
someone (including the original foundry) simply saving it as OT instead of
TT or PS. Because TT fonts could already have a larger glyph set than T1
fonts, those sets are carried forward.
But I think that you're basing your comments on a somewhat limited sample.
In particular, the all-new Adobe Pro series, now out for a couple of
years, have the most extensive glyph sets and open type features of
anything available.
Microsoft's TT-based OT fonts appear to have broader language coverage,
while Adobe's PS-based OT fonts have much greater typographic support,
with alternate glyphs, extended ligatures, position-sensitive glyph
selection, old-style figures, small caps, etc.
- Character

Dimitar Gyoshev

2007-11-29 07:01:01 UTC

Thank you Tom ,

But I haven't TrueType version of Gill Sans Cyr MT font.
Could you advice me with the name of the best software for convert from
Postscript to TrueType version ( if any is available),Please?
--
Dimitar Gyoshev

+++from the font folder+++
.. Restart the computer. Test to see if the problem

Post by Tom Ferguson
remains.
Tom
MSMVP 19989-2007

Post by Tom Ferguson
The preference I have for those with TT data -vs- PS data has nothing to
do with the quality of the data but with the set of glyphs present. Those
with TT data tend to have better language coverage. There is no technical
reason why that should be so, it is just the present state. It is my
impression that the OT fonts with PS data were produced by little more
than placing a wrapper around the PS font, so to speak. No doubt that
will change as various foundries issue updates and new fonts in that
format.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Yes, some OT font files that are floating around are nothing more than
someone (including the original foundry) simply saving it as OT instead of
TT or PS. Because TT fonts could already have a larger glyph set than T1
fonts, those sets are carried forward.
But I think that you're basing your comments on a somewhat limited sample.
In particular, the all-new Adobe Pro series, now out for a couple of
years, have the most extensive glyph sets and open type features of
anything available.
Microsoft's TT-based OT fonts appear to have broader language coverage,
while Adobe's PS-based OT fonts have much greater typographic support,
with alternate glyphs, extended ligatures, position-sensitive glyph
selection, old-style figures, small caps, etc.
- Character

Tom Ferguson

2007-11-29 17:55:53 UTC

One reply from my query was
"My guess is that there something about the font that doesn’t meet the
spec – could be code page or Unicode range bits not being properly set."

On that issue, contact Monotype.

Check FontLab website for a converter.
http://www.fontlab.com/

Check your computer for any variety of Gill Sans in Truetype format. E.g.
some Microsoft products ship with one on the CD or DVD and will install it.
That version does _not_ have Cyrillic glyphs and if it is being substituted
for the MT PostScript font, you would get the result you experience.

Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Post by Dimitar Gyoshev
Thank you Tom ,
But I haven't TrueType version of Gill Sans Cyr MT font.
Could you advice me with the name of the best software for convert from
Postscript to TrueType version ( if any is available),Please?
--
Dimitar Gyoshev

+++from the font folder+++
.. Restart the computer. Test to see if the problem

Post by Tom Ferguson
remains.
Tom
MSMVP 19989-2007

Post by Dimitar Gyoshev
Gentlemen,
Your discussion is very interesting but you whent in another directory too
far away from my question!
Just for clarification my simple question is over the Office 2007 and usage
of PostScript font Gill Sans Cyr MT.
1. This is our Company font !
2. This font allready worked under Office 2003 !
3. Cirllic is available in this font !
4. I will repeit the question again
" When I type in English this font is appear correctly ( means no problems)
but when I switch to Cyrillic alphabet the font automatically changes to
Times New Roman with Cirillic letters (only Cyrillic part I mean) .
When
I
want to format it , selecting the text , pointing the request font
Gill
Sans
Cyr MT In the roll own menu "Change the Font face" window - nothing happened
. The font stay 'Times New..'.! Only using 'Format Painter' solve my problem
(taking the format from Latin (English) part.),BUT THIS IS NOT THE BEST
SOLUTION .When I used Office 2003 every think worked perfectly!!! ,
now
with
2007 doesn't. The same problem occur on my college's PC ( the same
installation) .
This is the question not what is the different betwin TT and PS fonts!
--
Dimitar Gyoshev

Post by Tom Ferguson
I agree that Microsoft has placed greater emphasis on cross-language support
as opposed to typographic niceties such as those you mention. Indeed, in
various conversations with folks in the MS typography department, I have
urged more attention to that for whatever small influence I might
have.
And,
of course, my opinion is based on my experience which, like yours and
anybody else's, is limited by definition. ;-) But do recall that the OP's
issue had to do with language coverage.
However, you make fair observation/comment.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Post by Tom Ferguson
The preference I have for those with TT data -vs- PS data has
nothing
to
do with the quality of the data but with the set of glyphs present.
Those
with TT data tend to have better language coverage. There is no technical
reason why that should be so, it is just the present state. It is my
impression that the OT fonts with PS data were produced by little more
than placing a wrapper around the PS font, so to speak. No doubt that
will change as various foundries issue updates and new fonts in that
format.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Yes, some OT font files that are floating around are nothing more than
someone (including the original foundry) simply saving it as OT instead of
TT or PS. Because TT fonts could already have a larger glyph set
than
T1
fonts, those sets are carried forward.
But I think that you're basing your comments on a somewhat limited sample.
In particular, the all-new Adobe Pro series, now out for a couple of
years, have the most extensive glyph sets and open type features of
anything available.
Microsoft's TT-based OT fonts appear to have broader language coverage,
while Adobe's PS-based OT fonts have much greater typographic support,
with alternate glyphs, extended ligatures, position-sensitive glyph
selection, old-style figures, small caps, etc.
- Character

Dimitar Gyoshev

2007-11-30 05:14:00 UTC

Tom,

Thank you for the attention and advices.
On this way to convert the fonts I will find solution ( probably),
BUT ANY HOW THIS IS A BUG IN THE MsOffice 2007 as many others and the hope
that Ms will repare it is left!

Wish you all the best and Merry Christmas!
--
Dimitar Gyoshev

Post by Tom Ferguson
One reply from my query was
"My guess is that there something about the font that doesn’t meet the
spec – could be code page or Unicode range bits not being properly set."
On that issue, contact Monotype.
Check FontLab website for a converter.
http://www.fontlab.com/
Check your computer for any variety of Gill Sans in Truetype format. E.g.
some Microsoft products ship with one on the CD or DVD and will install it.
That version does _not_ have Cyrillic glyphs and if it is being substituted
for the MT PostScript font, you would get the result you experience.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

+++from the font folder+++
.. Restart the computer. Test to see if the problem

Post by Tom Ferguson
remains.
Tom
MSMVP 19989-2007

Post by Dimitar Gyoshev
Gentlemen,
Your discussion is very interesting but you whent in another directory too
far away from my question!
Just for clarification my simple question is over the Office 2007 and usage
of PostScript font Gill Sans Cyr MT.
1. This is our Company font !
2. This font allready worked under Office 2003 !
3. Cirllic is available in this font !
4. I will repeit the question again
" When I type in English this font is appear correctly ( means no problems)
but when I switch to Cyrillic alphabet the font automatically changes to
Times New Roman with Cirillic letters (only Cyrillic part I mean) .
When
I
want to format it , selecting the text , pointing the request font
Gill
Sans
Cyr MT In the roll own menu "Change the Font face" window - nothing happened
. The font stay 'Times New..'.! Only using 'Format Painter' solve my problem
(taking the format from Latin (English) part.),BUT THIS IS NOT THE BEST
SOLUTION .When I used Office 2003 every think worked perfectly!!! ,
now
with
2007 doesn't. The same problem occur on my college's PC ( the same
installation) .
This is the question not what is the different betwin TT and PS fonts!
--
Dimitar Gyoshev

Post by Tom Ferguson
I agree that Microsoft has placed greater emphasis on cross-language support
as opposed to typographic niceties such as those you mention. Indeed, in
various conversations with folks in the MS typography department, I have
urged more attention to that for whatever small influence I might
have.
And,
of course, my opinion is based on my experience which, like yours and
anybody else's, is limited by definition. ;-) But do recall that the OP's
issue had to do with language coverage.
However, you make fair observation/comment.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Post by Tom Ferguson
The preference I have for those with TT data -vs- PS data has
nothing
to
do with the quality of the data but with the set of glyphs present.
Those
with TT data tend to have better language coverage. There is no
technical
reason why that should be so, it is just the present state. It is my
impression that the OT fonts with PS data were produced by little more
than placing a wrapper around the PS font, so to speak. No doubt that
will change as various foundries issue updates and new fonts in that
format.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Yes, some OT font files that are floating around are nothing more than
someone (including the original foundry) simply saving it as OT
instead of
TT or PS. Because TT fonts could already have a larger glyph set
than
T1
fonts, those sets are carried forward.
But I think that you're basing your comments on a somewhat limited
sample.
In particular, the all-new Adobe Pro series, now out for a couple of
years, have the most extensive glyph sets and open type features of
anything available.
Microsoft's TT-based OT fonts appear to have broader language coverage,
while Adobe's PS-based OT fonts have much greater typographic support,
with alternate glyphs, extended ligatures, position-sensitive glyph
selection, old-style figures, small caps, etc.
- Character

Tom Ferguson

2007-11-30 17:56:38 UTC

I hope it works for you.

I am not sure that what you are seeing is a "bug" in the strict sense. As I
understand the term, a "bug" is a fault or flaw in the system that results
in improper operation. Historically, the original "bug" was literally that.
A moth had somehow gotten squashed between the electrical contacts of a
relay in an main-frame computer and cause a malfunction. Thus, there was a
"bug" that caused an error. The term stuck. In this case, I suspect the
system is operating as intended. However, there is at least one consequence
of that operation-as-designed of the font substitution system, it gives an
intended result, the font is substituted according to the rule set; however,
you see a failure to render the Cyrillic glyphs properly. So, technically,
there is not a "bug" but an unsuitable intended result.

But, in a sense, this is hair-splitting. The result is not what you need or
want.

I would suggest contacting Monotype and seek their advice on changing your
corporate font to one that has the look and feel you want and whose files
will work with Office 2007 and the operating system possibly an Open Type
Gill Sans.

All the best.

Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Post by Dimitar Gyoshev
Tom,
Thank you for the attention and advices.
On this way to convert the fonts I will find solution ( probably),
BUT ANY HOW THIS IS A BUG IN THE MsOffice 2007 as many others and the hope
that Ms will repare it is left!
Wish you all the best and Merry Christmas!
--
Dimitar Gyoshev

Post by Tom Ferguson
Check your font directories and see if you have a TrueType version
of
Gill
Sans installed as well as a PostScript version. If you do, copy the
TrueType version to a different folder in order to back up the files and
then delete the TrueType files

+++from the font folder+++
.. Restart the computer. Test to see if the problem

Post by Tom Ferguson
remains.
Tom
MSMVP 19989-2007

Post by Dimitar Gyoshev
Gentlemen,
Your discussion is very interesting but you whent in another
directory
too
far away from my question!
Just for clarification my simple question is over the Office 2007
and
usage
of PostScript font Gill Sans Cyr MT.
1. This is our Company font !
2. This font allready worked under Office 2003 !
3. Cirllic is available in this font !
4. I will repeit the question again
" When I type in English this font is appear correctly ( means no problems)
but when I switch to Cyrillic alphabet the font automatically
changes
to
Times New Roman with Cirillic letters (only Cyrillic part I mean) .
When
I
want to format it , selecting the text , pointing the request font
Gill
Sans
Cyr MT In the roll own menu "Change the Font face" window -
nothing
happened
. The font stay 'Times New..'.! Only using 'Format Painter' solve
my
problem
(taking the format from Latin (English) part.),BUT THIS IS NOT THE BEST
SOLUTION .When I used Office 2003 every think worked perfectly!!! ,
now
with
2007 doesn't. The same problem occur on my college's PC ( the same
installation) .
This is the question not what is the different betwin TT and PS fonts!
--
Dimitar Gyoshev

Post by Tom Ferguson
I agree that Microsoft has placed greater emphasis on
cross-language
support
as opposed to typographic niceties such as those you mention.
Indeed,
in
various conversations with folks in the MS typography department,
I
have
urged more attention to that for whatever small influence I might
have.
And,
of course, my opinion is based on my experience which, like yours and
anybody else's, is limited by definition. ;-) But do recall that
the
OP's
issue had to do with language coverage.
However, you make fair observation/comment.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Post by Tom Ferguson
The preference I have for those with TT data -vs- PS data has
nothing
to
do with the quality of the data but with the set of glyphs present.
Those
with TT data tend to have better language coverage. There is no
technical
reason why that should be so, it is just the present state. It
is
my
impression that the OT fonts with PS data were produced by
little
more
than placing a wrapper around the PS font, so to speak. No
doubt
that
will change as various foundries issue updates and new fonts in that
format.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Yes, some OT font files that are floating around are nothing
more
than
someone (including the original foundry) simply saving it as OT
instead of
TT or PS. Because TT fonts could already have a larger glyph set
than
T1
fonts, those sets are carried forward.
But I think that you're basing your comments on a somewhat limited
sample.
In particular, the all-new Adobe Pro series, now out for a
couple
of
years, have the most extensive glyph sets and open type features of
anything available.
Microsoft's TT-based OT fonts appear to have broader language coverage,
while Adobe's PS-based OT fonts have much greater typographic support,
with alternate glyphs, extended ligatures, position-sensitive glyph
selection, old-style figures, small caps, etc.
- Character

Dimitar Gyoshev

2007-12-03 03:17:01 UTC

Thank you Tom,

I will consult with the Managers to follow your advice for looking for Gil
Sans - OpenType . I am not a big font specialist, could you advice me with
stipulation of the request for improving the company font, Please!

I mean how to formulate them the request 'To buy Gill Sans Cyr Open Type or
Trough type ' or..... however is called ???!?? but not PostScript . Help me
please.

P.S. This historical explanation of the "bug" was funny!!
--
Dimitar Gyoshev

Post by Tom Ferguson
I hope it works for you.
I am not sure that what you are seeing is a "bug" in the strict sense. As I
understand the term, a "bug" is a fault or flaw in the system that results
in improper operation. Historically, the original "bug" was literally that.
A moth had somehow gotten squashed between the electrical contacts of a
relay in an main-frame computer and cause a malfunction. Thus, there was a
"bug" that caused an error. The term stuck. In this case, I suspect the
system is operating as intended. However, there is at least one consequence
of that operation-as-designed of the font substitution system, it gives an
intended result, the font is substituted according to the rule set; however,
you see a failure to render the Cyrillic glyphs properly. So, technically,
there is not a "bug" but an unsuitable intended result.
But, in a sense, this is hair-splitting. The result is not what you need or
want.
I would suggest contacting Monotype and seek their advice on changing your
corporate font to one that has the look and feel you want and whose files
will work with Office 2007 and the operating system possibly an Open Type
Gill Sans.
All the best.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Post by Tom Ferguson
Check your font directories and see if you have a TrueType version
of
Gill
Sans installed as well as a PostScript version. If you do, copy the
TrueType version to a different folder in order to back up the files and
then delete the TrueType files

+++from the font folder+++
.. Restart the computer. Test to see if the problem

Post by Tom Ferguson
remains.
Tom
MSMVP 19989-2007

Post by Dimitar Gyoshev
Gentlemen,
Your discussion is very interesting but you whent in another
directory
too
far away from my question!
Just for clarification my simple question is over the Office 2007
and
usage
of PostScript font Gill Sans Cyr MT.
1. This is our Company font !
2. This font allready worked under Office 2003 !
3. Cirllic is available in this font !
4. I will repeit the question again
" When I type in English this font is appear correctly ( means no
problems)
but when I switch to Cyrillic alphabet the font automatically
changes
to
Times New Roman with Cirillic letters (only Cyrillic part I mean) .
When
I
want to format it , selecting the text , pointing the request font
Gill
Sans
Cyr MT In the roll own menu "Change the Font face" window -
nothing
happened
. The font stay 'Times New..'.! Only using 'Format Painter' solve
my
problem
(taking the format from Latin (English) part.),BUT THIS IS NOT THE BEST
SOLUTION .When I used Office 2003 every think worked perfectly!!! ,
now
with
2007 doesn't. The same problem occur on my college's PC ( the same
installation) .
This is the question not what is the different betwin TT and PS fonts!
--
Dimitar Gyoshev

Post by Tom Ferguson
I agree that Microsoft has placed greater emphasis on
cross-language
support
as opposed to typographic niceties such as those you mention.
Indeed,
in
various conversations with folks in the MS typography department,
I
have
urged more attention to that for whatever small influence I might
have.
And,
of course, my opinion is based on my experience which, like yours and
anybody else's, is limited by definition. ;-) But do recall that
the
OP's
issue had to do with language coverage.
However, you make fair observation/comment.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Post by Tom Ferguson
The preference I have for those with TT data -vs- PS data has
nothing
to
do with the quality of the data but with the set of glyphs
present.
Those
with TT data tend to have better language coverage. There is no
technical
reason why that should be so, it is just the present state. It
is
my
impression that the OT fonts with PS data were produced by
little
more
than placing a wrapper around the PS font, so to speak. No
doubt
that
will change as various foundries issue updates and new fonts in
that
format.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Yes, some OT font files that are floating around are nothing
more
than
someone (including the original foundry) simply saving it as OT
instead of
TT or PS. Because TT fonts could already have a larger glyph set
than
T1
fonts, those sets are carried forward.
But I think that you're basing your comments on a somewhat limited
sample.
In particular, the all-new Adobe Pro series, now out for a
couple
of
years, have the most extensive glyph sets and open type features of
anything available.
Microsoft's TT-based OT fonts appear to have broader language
coverage,
while Adobe's PS-based OT fonts have much greater typographic
support,
with alternate glyphs, extended ligatures, position-sensitive glyph
selection, old-style figures, small caps, etc.
- Character

Tom Ferguson

2007-12-03 07:02:21 UTC

I would first contact Monotype Imaging or other good source to ask them
which package would be best for the company's use. Probably, a package of
Open Type fonts would serve best.

This is one possibility.
http://tinyurl.com/39n8zo

Be sure to tell them which operating system or systems and applications you
intend to use it with.

After that discussion, you will better be able to offer the managers good
advice.

Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Post by Dimitar Gyoshev
Thank you Tom,
I will consult with the Managers to follow your advice for looking for Gil
Sans - OpenType . I am not a big font specialist, could you advice me with
stipulation of the request for improving the company font, Please!
I mean how to formulate them the request 'To buy Gill Sans Cyr Open Type or
Trough type ' or..... however is called ???!?? but not PostScript . Help me
please.
P.S. This historical explanation of the "bug" was funny!!
--
Dimitar Gyoshev

Post by Tom Ferguson
I hope it works for you.
I am not sure that what you are seeing is a "bug" in the strict sense. As I
understand the term, a "bug" is a fault or flaw in the system that results
in improper operation. Historically, the original "bug" was literally that.
A moth had somehow gotten squashed between the electrical contacts of a
relay in an main-frame computer and cause a malfunction. Thus, there was a
"bug" that caused an error. The term stuck. In this case, I suspect the
system is operating as intended. However, there is at least one consequence
of that operation-as-designed of the font substitution system, it gives an
intended result, the font is substituted according to the rule set; however,
you see a failure to render the Cyrillic glyphs properly. So,
technically,
there is not a "bug" but an unsuitable intended result.
But, in a sense, this is hair-splitting. The result is not what you need or
want.
I would suggest contacting Monotype and seek their advice on changing your
corporate font to one that has the look and feel you want and whose files
will work with Office 2007 and the operating system possibly an Open Type
Gill Sans.
All the best.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Post by Tom Ferguson
One reply from my query was
"My guess is that there something about the font that doesn’t meet the
spec – could be code page or Unicode range bits not being properly set."
On that issue, contact Monotype.
Check FontLab website for a converter.
http://www.fontlab.com/
Check your computer for any variety of Gill Sans in Truetype format. E.g.
some Microsoft products ship with one on the CD or DVD and will
install
it.
That version does _not_ have Cyrillic glyphs and if it is being substituted
for the MT PostScript font, you would get the result you experience.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Post by Tom Ferguson
Check your font directories and see if you have a TrueType version
of
Gill
Sans installed as well as a PostScript version. If you do, copy the
TrueType version to a different folder in order to back up the
files
and
then delete the TrueType files

+++from the font folder+++
.. Restart the computer. Test to see if the problem

Post by Tom Ferguson
remains.
Tom
MSMVP 19989-2007

Post by Dimitar Gyoshev
Gentlemen,
Your discussion is very interesting but you whent in another
directory
too
far away from my question!
Just for clarification my simple question is over the Office 2007
and
usage
of PostScript font Gill Sans Cyr MT.
1. This is our Company font !
2. This font allready worked under Office 2003 !
3. Cirllic is available in this font !
4. I will repeit the question again
" When I type in English this font is appear correctly ( means no
problems)
but when I switch to Cyrillic alphabet the font automatically
changes
to
Times New Roman with Cirillic letters (only Cyrillic part I mean) .
When
I
want to format it , selecting the text , pointing the request font
Gill
Sans
Cyr MT In the roll own menu "Change the Font face" window -
nothing
happened
. The font stay 'Times New..'.! Only using 'Format Painter' solve
my
problem
(taking the format from Latin (English) part.),BUT THIS IS NOT
THE
BEST
SOLUTION .When I used Office 2003 every think worked
perfectly!!! ,
now
with
2007 doesn't. The same problem occur on my college's PC ( the same
installation) .
This is the question not what is the different betwin TT and PS fonts!
--
Dimitar Gyoshev

Post by Tom Ferguson
I agree that Microsoft has placed greater emphasis on
cross-language
support
as opposed to typographic niceties such as those you mention.
Indeed,
in
various conversations with folks in the MS typography department,
I
have
urged more attention to that for whatever small influence I might
have.
And,
of course, my opinion is based on my experience which, like
yours
and
anybody else's, is limited by definition. ;-) But do recall that
the
OP's
issue had to do with language coverage.
However, you make fair observation/comment.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Post by Tom Ferguson
The preference I have for those with TT data -vs- PS data has
nothing
to
do with the quality of the data but with the set of glyphs
present.
Those
with TT data tend to have better language coverage. There is no
technical
reason why that should be so, it is just the present state. It
is
my
impression that the OT fonts with PS data were produced by
little
more
than placing a wrapper around the PS font, so to speak. No
doubt
that
will change as various foundries issue updates and new fonts in
that
format.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Yes, some OT font files that are floating around are nothing
more
than
someone (including the original foundry) simply saving it as OT
instead of
TT or PS. Because TT fonts could already have a larger glyph set
than
T1
fonts, those sets are carried forward.
But I think that you're basing your comments on a somewhat
limited
sample.
In particular, the all-new Adobe Pro series, now out for a
couple
of
years, have the most extensive glyph sets and open type
features
of
anything available.
Microsoft's TT-based OT fonts appear to have broader language
coverage,
while Adobe's PS-based OT fonts have much greater typographic
support,
with alternate glyphs, extended ligatures, position-sensitive
glyph
selection, old-style figures, small caps, etc.
- Character

Tom Ferguson

2007-12-03 07:47:44 UTC

PS (the writing, not the font format :-))

In the interest of accuracy, I should point out that the incident I referred
to actually occurred. It involved Grace Brewster Hooper (born Murray), later
Rear Admiral Grace Hooper, Ph D and a principal author of the computer
language called COBOL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper

However, the term was in use for failure-caused errors before that and its
origin seems lost in obscurity.

Tom

Post by Tom Ferguson
I hope it works for you.
I am not sure that what you are seeing is a "bug" in the strict sense. As I
understand the term, a "bug" is a fault or flaw in the system that results
in improper operation. Historically, the original "bug" was literally that.
A moth had somehow gotten squashed between the electrical contacts of a
relay in an main-frame computer and cause a malfunction. Thus, there was a
"bug" that caused an error. The term stuck. In this case, I suspect the
system is operating as intended. However, there is at least one consequence
of that operation-as-designed of the font substitution system, it gives an
intended result, the font is substituted according to the rule set; however,
you see a failure to render the Cyrillic glyphs properly. So,
technically,
there is not a "bug" but an unsuitable intended result.
But, in a sense, this is hair-splitting. The result is not what you need or
want.
I would suggest contacting Monotype and seek their advice on changing your
corporate font to one that has the look and feel you want and whose files
will work with Office 2007 and the operating system possibly an Open Type
Gill Sans.
All the best.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Post by Tom Ferguson
One reply from my query was
"My guess is that there something about the font that doesn’t meet the
spec – could be code page or Unicode range bits not being properly set."
On that issue, contact Monotype.
Check FontLab website for a converter.
http://www.fontlab.com/
Check your computer for any variety of Gill Sans in Truetype format. E.g.
some Microsoft products ship with one on the CD or DVD and will
install
it.
That version does _not_ have Cyrillic glyphs and if it is being substituted
for the MT PostScript font, you would get the result you experience.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007

Post by Tom Ferguson
Check your font directories and see if you have a TrueType version
of
Gill
Sans installed as well as a PostScript version. If you do, copy the
TrueType version to a different folder in order to back up the
files
and
then delete the TrueType files

+++from the font folder+++
.. Restart the computer. Test to see if the problem

Post by Tom Ferguson
remains.
Tom
MSMVP 19989-2007

Post by Dimitar Gyoshev
Gentlemen,
Your discussion is very interesting but you whent in another
directory
too
far away from my question!
Just for clarification my simple question is over the Office 2007
and
usage
of PostScript font Gill Sans Cyr MT.
1. This is our Company font !
2. This font allready worked under Office 2003 !
3. Cirllic is available in this font !
4. I will repeit the question again
" When I type in English this font is appear correctly ( means no
problems)
but when I switch to Cyrillic alphabet the font automatically
changes
to
Times New Roman with Cirillic letters (only Cyrillic part I mean) .
When
I
want to format it , selecting the text , pointing the request font
Gill
Sans
Cyr MT In the roll own menu "Change the Font face" window -
nothing
happened
. The font stay 'Times New..'.! Only using 'Format Painter' solve
my
problem
(taking the format from Latin (English) part.),BUT THIS IS NOT
THE
BEST
SOLUTION .When I used Office 2003 every think worked
perfectly!!! ,
now
with
2007 doesn't. The same problem occur on my college's PC ( the same
installation) .
This is the question not what is the different betwin TT and PS fonts!
--
Dimitar Gyoshev

Post by Tom Ferguson
I agree that Microsoft has placed greater emphasis on
cross-language
support
as opposed to typographic niceties such as those you mention.
Indeed,
in
various conversations with folks in the MS typography department,
I
have
urged more attention to that for whatever small influence I might
have.
And,
of course, my opinion is based on my experience which, like
yours
and
anybody else's, is limited by definition. ;-) But do recall that
the
OP's
issue had to do with language coverage.
However, you make fair observation/comment.
Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007