PDA

View Full Version : End of Type 1 support?


ktinkel
11-05-2005, 06:05 PM
A comment from Thomas Phinney’s blog, Typlography (http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/): Adobe & Our Customers:

So, looking at this situation, the main thing Adobe sees as a type foundry is if we keep on selling Type 1 fonts, starting in a year or two there will be a bunch of applications that won't support them, at least on Windows. At the same time, we've been moving away from Type 1 sales for many years.

So our current plan is that no later than when Windows Vista ships (late 2006?), Adobe will stop retail licensing of Type 1 fonts for Mac and Windows. This is subject to review and change based on market conditions, but it's our current best estimate.
What seems most interesting to me is that when Windows upgrades its OS, Adobe will stop selling Type 1 fonts even on the Mac. Since most commercial type is still set on Macs, this is odd, if not absolutely perverse. (And the rest is set by Windows users, also with Type 1 fonts.)

Wonder where Adobe would be today if it had not the shoulders of loyal graphic designers and typographers to ride upon?

[Oh, shut up, Kathleen!] <g>

Stephen Owades
11-05-2005, 07:23 PM
Why does this bother you? Any reasonably-modern Mac or PC can use "type 1 flavored" OpenType fonts, and it seems reasonable for Adobe to sell their type in that format. The only advantage I can see for traditional type 1 fonts on the Mac is the availability of bitmapped screen fonts in several sizes, and with today's on-screen type rendering and higher-res screens that's not much of an issue. In many situations (such as with recent Adobe applications), you're already seeing the outline font rendered on-screen, anyway.

Notice that Mr. Phinney made it clear that there's no intent to abandon support for traditional type 1 fonts in Adobe applications. If Apple or Microsoft choose to do so, that's another matter, but it's not within Adobe's control. And transitioning new type sales over to OpenType seems like a good strategy for Adobe in any case.

There's no reason for non-Pro OpenType fonts to be more complicated or expensive than their type 1 equivalents. And one can hope for more of the type families that presently require expert sets and other kludges to access true small caps, old-style figures, and special ligatures to become available in OpenType Pro form. (I'm hoping for Eric Spiekermann to do this with Meta one of these days.)

Actually, I'm one of the few people who may have trouble with this transition, since the pagination program that I wrote many years ago and use regularly for directory typesetting is not yet able to take advantage of extended character sets via Unicode. I'll have to bite the bullet and incorporate support for that one of these days.

Ian Petersen
11-06-2005, 01:40 AM
I think that stopping selling T1s coincidentally with Windows Vista's release is simply a case of 'as good a time as any'. There's no need to read more into it than that. I wouldn't be surprised if Mac OS-XI drops native support for T1s as well, whenever it appears. Type-1 is quite simply obsolete and the sooner we can have purely Unicode/OpenType workflows the better.

Michael Rowley
11-06-2005, 07:54 AM
Ian:

Type-1 is quite simply obsolete

Surely Type 1 uses the same outline code as OTF fonts, where the difference between them and OT TT fonts is only the outline code. Windows & Mac OS 10 can use OTF (and Type 1) fonts now, & it's not likely to change with Vista.

Adobe would be mad to sell both T1 and OTF versions of its fonts once OTF or OT-TT fonts become the norm, which now seems certain. And the 'Pro' fonts seem to have caught on: many type producers (we really must stop calling them 'foundries') have started selling them.

ktinkel
11-06-2005, 07:55 AM
Why does this bother you?I do not look forward to buying new fonts, for one thing. If things play out as you and Ian suggest (and as the wind is blowing), I can imagine a time fairly soon when people who have a large investment in Type 1 fonts will be faced with choosing between sticking with older computers and old applications or replacing expensive font libraries.

For another, I do not gain much with OpenType fonts. Given my druthers, I would just as soon have Type 1s, even with the need for expert sets. (Actually, I would much rather be able to use multiple master fonts than any other format, but I realize that is a forlorn hope.) I certainly do not want to have to buy OT versions of older T1s when the only change is the format.

Where is that tool Adobe once said would be available for converting T1 fonts to OT? That at least would let typographers and others retain their libraries — which represent not only money but time spent modifying kern pairs and otherwise adapting the fonts for use.

I recognize that when DTP came along, existing typesetters were driven to adapt or go out of business, but in that case the equipment and software was limping (most of the systems I knew were still based on CP/M). We are far from being in that state today — obsolescence is being forced by technological changes designed primarily to allow vendors to extend their markets.

Pardon me if that makes me grumpy.

Michael Rowley
11-06-2005, 08:04 AM
KT:

Where is that tool Adobe once said would be available for converting T1 fonts to OT?

At least one (TransType) was discussed in this forum not so long ago, though it didn't appear to excite your interest. It works too.

ktinkel
11-06-2005, 09:31 AM
At least one (TransType) was discussed in this forum not so long ago, though it didn't appear to excite your interest. It works too.I was thinking of one that Adobe said it would offer when it was first talking about OpenType.

TransType is from FontLab, right? I should take a look. Thanks.

Ian Petersen
11-06-2005, 10:17 AM
It's not the outlines that are the problem, though. It's the 'package' the outlines are in, i.e. the Type-1 format itself which, amongst other limitations, doesn't support more than 256 characters in one font. That's what makes T1 obsolete: no Unicode and no cross-platform capability. A lot of people are beginning to need those capabilities ...

In these forums, we tend to concentrate on the fine (latin) typographic features of OpenType - the neato alternate characters, smart ligatures, small caps and oldstyle figures - but these features are really just icing on the cake. For a large part of the world's population, if not the majority, Unicode and OpenType are essential just to be able use a computer in their own language and, perhaps even more importantly, communicate easily with other computers in other countries and other platforms.

Ian Petersen
11-06-2005, 10:41 AM
Isn't this just the same complaint we all utter, once in a while, when faced with yet another software upgrade? And the answer is pretty much the same, too: No one is forcing you to upgrade! Your current library of Type-1s will continue to work fine on your current system and in your current software for years to come. And I'm willing to bet the type of software we use here - mid to high-end DTP applications - will continue to work with T1s for at least another decade or so.

Where is that tool Adobe once said would be available for converting T1 fonts to OT?I think they chickened out when considering the potential support nightmare. They chose to convert their own library themselves. But they do give away for free their own OpenType production tools in the form of the OT Development Kit. The same tool that is integrated into FontLab if you want a nice interface on it. <g> FontLab also do a basic 1 to 1 T1 > OT converter, I think, if you don't want or need to mess with FontLab itself or the OTDK.

Michael Rowley
11-06-2005, 12:59 PM
Ian:

amongst other limitations, doesn't support more than 256 characters in one font

It's a fallacy that an every OT font necessarily has more than 256 characters or even OT features, but most of the fonts Microsoft labels 'OT' do at least have Greek, Cyrrilic, and Arabic glyphs; and so, of course do the OTF fonts that Adobe has produced.

I think applications which are geared solely to the system of only 256 glyphs per 'page' are doomed; FrameMaker is one such application. Although even I have got several 'expert' fonts, it already annoys me to have to use them when I also have the corresponding OTF Pro fonts.

One thing KT has not mentioned is that many T1 (and TT) fonts compare badly with metal types, although they had not the constraints of people designing fonts for Linotype or Monotype. A lot of fonts won't be missed!

Michael Rowley
11-06-2005, 01:07 PM
KT:

TransType is from FontLab, right?

Right (you reported its latest release!). I think the expenditure is worth it, though I should warn you that a few T1 fonts declined being converted if they were not part of the 'usual' set of four: I think the snag was setting appropriate names, but someone more skilled might well have better results than I did.

Ian Petersen
11-06-2005, 10:20 PM
It's a fallacy that an every OT font necessarily has more than 256 characters or even OT featuresOf course. A straight conversion from T1 to OT won't magically add a bunch of features and multiple language support. The point is OT can support these things whereas T1 can't. The only criteria Microsoft uses to distinguish OT fonts from 'legacy' TTs is the presence of a digital signature in the font.

many T1 (and TT) fonts compare badly with metal typesWell, that has nothing to do with the format per se. Again, a straight conversion from T1 or TT to OpenType will not change the outlines or features in any way. A poor design remains a poor design in OT! But many of the 'Pro' OT fonts are new designs that deal more gracefully with the limitations of digital outline fonts and modern offset production.

Michael Rowley
11-07-2005, 08:22 AM
Ian:

The only criteria Microsoft uses to distinguish OT fonts from 'legacy' TTs is the presence of a digital signature in the font

Microsoft could have done that, but it appears that it hasn't: all the OT fonts that it labels as such are 'enhanced' fonts, and Microsoft has been implementing Unicode for some years now.

One point that Phinney has made in his web log is that the specification for Avalon (the new graphical interface that will be introduced in Visa and for use in Windows XP) doesn't indicate support for Type 1 fonts, but Vista itself will continue to support them, and presumably the future Mac OS will also. So it seems as though KT is crying 'Woe, woe!' too soon.

Ian Petersen
11-07-2005, 10:38 AM
Microsoft could have done thatThey did!all the OT fonts that it labels as such are 'enhanced' fontsWhat do you mean by 'enhanced'?and Microsoft has been implementing Unicode for some years nowVery true. About a decade, I would think. But that is irrelevant to the fact that the only thing that triggers an OpenType icon in Windows (2000), for a TT-flavour OT font, is the presence of a digital signature.

Michael Rowley
11-07-2005, 01:22 PM
Ian:

They did!

I meant (as if that wasn't obvious) that Microsoft didn't just label TT fonts as OT fonts if they weren't 'enhanced' in some way; and by enhanced I mean that they contain more than 256 glyphs. However, my copy of the Arial Unicode font (dated 1999) is not officially an OT font. Perhaps it isn't the latest.

I didn't know that digital signatures have anything to do with their being OT, but of course TT fonts don't need much to make them OT. The TT fonts that are officially OT fonts have '(Open Type)' added to the font name in the viewer and belong they are marked 'Digitally signed, TrueType outlines'. Since few fonts have been designed for Microsoft, the digital signatures must have been added by someone else (quite often, Monotype).

Ian Petersen
11-07-2005, 02:25 PM
I meant (as if that wasn't obvious) that Microsoft didn't just label TT fonts as OT fonts if they weren't 'enhanced' in some wayThat is precisely what they did! When Win 2000 shipped the core OpenType fonts such as Verdana and Arial were precisely identical, with regard to glyph complement, to their TrueType forbears aside from the digital signature. However, some of these fonts may since have aquired more glyphs and features. Palatino Linotype was the only 'enhaced' latin OpenType font that shipped with Win2k, having several OT-layout features.I didn't know that digital signatures have anything to do with their being OT, but of course TT fonts don't need much to make them OT.If I remember correctly, almost all of the qualities that define an OpenType font were present in TrueType Open: Large character sets, Unicode, advanced typographic layout features etc. The Middle East and Indic core fonts for Windows 95 were such TrueType Open fonts, I think, but the latin fonts were 'ordinary' TTs. The only difference betweene TrueType Open and OpenType proper is digital signature and the support of Type-1 (PostScript) style outlines.the digital signatures must have been added by someone else (quite often, Monotype)Most of Microsoft's fonts are designed and built, and therefore signed, by MonoType.

Michael Rowley
11-07-2005, 03:31 PM
Ian:

When Win 2000 shipped the core OpenType fonts such as Verdana and Arial were precisely identical, with regard to glyph complement, to their TrueType forbears aside from the digital signature.

As I was a latecomer (but not very late) to Windows 2000 and Office 9, having previously been content with Windows 3.11 & Office 6, I cannot comment on the fonts that were with Windows 2000 'when it shipped', but I have various fonts dated 1999 or even 1998, and most of them have more than the previous complement of glyphs. One of these is Arial Unicode, which has thousands, though it is not officially an 'open type' font. Clearly you are splitting hairs by declaring that there is a difference between what you describe as 'TT Open' and OpenType with TT outlines, because the specification hasn't changed appreciably. Did Microsoft even use digital signatures before 2000?

donmcc
11-07-2005, 04:33 PM
I don't see it happening. Fonts don't break down. They seldom need refurbishing or updates. Even though Adobe stops selling them, I suspect that Type 1 fonts will be around for at least another 10 years. Only if you need the new features of the new fonts will you need to upgrade.

Anyway, we have had it lucky. I think a few of my fonts are old enough to go into bars now. Remember the old days? Did your Comp II fonts fit on the Comp IV. And how nicely did those fit into the Editwriter, and (what was it MDT?).

New fonts have been a typographers fact of life. Heck, even the metal ones wore out eventually.

Don McCahill

Ian Petersen
11-07-2005, 10:43 PM
A short summary:

The difference between TrueType and OpenType is somewhat indistinct. The latter is an evolution of the former. Both formats can contain large character sets, Unicode c-maps and layout features. The point at which TrueType(Open) became known as OpenType was when Adobe-style Postscript outlines were included in the format. Digital signatures and a few other things were added at the same time. The first OpenType specification dates from 1996, if I remember rightly, and is mostly identical to the TrueType spec. The first widely shipping OT fonts were the Windows 2000 core fonts. Palatino LinoType being the only one having any 'new' OT features.

In Windows 2000 and later, Microsoft chooses to distinguish between the two formats TrueType and OpenType (both having the same extension .TTF), by looking for the digital signature in the font. If a digital signature is found the font gets an OpenType icon in Windows Explorer. If no digital signature is found the font will not get an OpenType icon even though it may contain extensive OT-layout features and a large character set. OpenType fonts with PostScript outlines have the .OTF extension and always receive the Windows OpenType icon even when they don't have a digital signature!

Confused enough yet?

Michael Rowley
11-08-2005, 08:56 AM
Ian:

Confused enough yet?

Not really. The confusing thing is Microsoft's (necessary) continuation of the 'pages' system of identifying glyphs at the same time as the 'new' Unicode system. For instance, v. 1.40 of Linotype Palatino is revealed by Windows typographic extension as having Latin, Greek, & Cyrrillic Unicode ranges (plus punctuation etc.), but has the Vietnamese page as well. If I look at Windows font viewer though, that font is just 'TrueType', although Linotype could have signed the file (dated 2002).

I assume that T1 fonts each correspond to just one page, and it is the page system that will eventually be dropped, as applications will not continue to use it. I gather that Vista won't drop it just yet, but eventually . . .

Whether or not Windows gives a font file an OT icon doesn't generally concern me, because ATM Deluxe, which I still use, doesn't recognize those icons, instead it distinguishes only an 'a' (Type 1), 'O' (OpenType with T1 outlines), and 'TT' (TrueType plain or coloured).

Stephen Owades
11-08-2005, 10:16 AM
My copy of Palatino Linotype shows a file name of pala.TTF and a version number of 1.40; the creation date is Monday, January 29, 1996 and the modified date is Thursday, October 12, 2000. It shows an "O" OpenType icon in Windows, and the Windows font viewer says it's an "OpenType Font, Digitally Signed, TrueType Outlines." Is your copy different?

Michael Rowley
11-08-2005, 11:29 AM
Stephen:

the creation date is Monday, January 29, 1996 and the modified date is Thursday, October 12, 2000. It shows an "O" OpenType icon in Windows, and the Windows font viewer says it's an "OpenType Font, Digitally Signed, TrueType Outlines."

My font file is different, but the font version number is the same. You copy is obviously digitally signed (mine isn't) and has a different origin: I presume mine came from the OEM copy of Office 2003, but I also upgraded to Windows XP from Windows 2000. Linotype Palatino gives very big files, so although my copy doesn't say 'Open Type', it obviously is. Curious that I should have a later-dated file than yours, but Microsoft sells rather a lot of its programs from different parts of the world.

Ian Petersen
11-08-2005, 11:43 AM
I think I've happily forgotten most of what I ever knew about codepages. And I have no great desire to reremember it! The 'codepages' you see in OpenType fonts are 'virtual' pages for the benefit of legacy software, I think. They're not 'really' there. Again, Type-1 fonts can correspond to a codepage, but not necessarily. With certain encodings (e.g. Adobe Standard) ATM could generate different codepages from the same basic font file depending on the system or language.

Michael Rowley
11-08-2005, 01:21 PM
Stephen:

My font file is different, but the font version number is the same (Michael)

I have to cancel that statement: it is the font viewer in ATM Deluxe that was supplying the false information! Although it is appparently the Windows Font Viewer that ATM Deluxe, if is not giving the same information as Windows Font Viewer. Is this a subtle Adobe plot to discredit Microsoft?

As I've said, I hardly ever go to the folder in which I keep all (I hope) my TT fonts, as I've no need to, but this time I looked specially. I don't understand how ATM Deluxe can convey different information from Font Viewer and Properties Extensions (which aren't displayed in ATM either.

Michael Rowley
11-08-2005, 01:49 PM
Ian:

The 'codepages' you see in OpenType fonts are 'virtual' pages for the benefit of legacy software, I think

All I know about code pages is that they exist, presumably as some sort of tables, but they must be real tables, mustn't they? And although you mention 'legacy' applications, they're mostly applications still in use today, for very few (it seems to me) even understand Unicode code points.

dthomsen8
11-09-2005, 05:38 AM
Should those who do web development but not DTP care about this impending change? If so, when?

Kelvyn
11-09-2005, 08:28 AM
Should those who do web development but not DTP care about this impending change?

David, it will not affect web development.

ktinkel
11-09-2005, 11:43 AM
Should those who do web development but not DTP care about this impending change? If so, when?No — rest easy. The fonts in question are not those normally used on the web.