PDA

View Full Version : InDesign Preflight\Package font missing


Adrian
11-18-2005, 03:14 AM
Hi!

I'm using InDesign CS (Mac OSX), and when I Preflighted a job (File\Preflight) it listed all of the fonts used. However, when I Packaged the job (File\Package) it completely missed/ignored one of the fonts. We knew nothing of this until the printer complained to the publisher who now thinks that we don't preflight properly!

Is this a known issue, or is it a problem with our set-up?

Or, is it a font issue? The font in question is Times NR Cyrillic (PS1). We have been informed, by the same publisher, that some of its packagers have had problems with "Central European" fonts and PDF files with InDesign.

Best wishes, Adrian

annc
11-18-2005, 11:42 AM
I don't have a solution for you, or any similar experience to relate, but just wondered if the report listed the missing font.

Michael Rowley
11-18-2005, 12:40 PM
Ann:

just wondered if the report listed the missing font

It did! look at Adrian's message again.

annc
11-19-2005, 01:53 AM
Ann:

just wondered if the report listed the missing font

It did! look at Adrian's message again.I did. It didn't.

When you package a job in InDesign, it produces a report in plain text format that lists everything included. This report is not produced in preflight.

Adrian
11-19-2005, 02:02 AM
Ann,

Interesting question! Because the font was shown in Preflight, I didn't look at the Package report. This shows the font as included, but lists it separately as a "Japanese Font". All other fonts are listed under "Roman fonts". What does this signify?

Best wishes, Adrian

annc
11-19-2005, 02:42 AM
I didn't look at the Package report. This shows the font as included, but lists it separately as a "Japanese Font". All other fonts are listed under "Roman fonts". What does this signify?I have no idea, Adrian, other than to assume that InDesign included it separately, and the printer didn't notice.

Like you, I always preflight my InDesign files, and then package them when I'm satisfied that there are no errors. It would be interesting to hear back from the printer as to what they saw in the package report, and if there was any sort of flag to indicate a problem, or a separate folder of 'Japanese fonts'.

It's a bit of a shame that they didn't contact you directly, and placed a complaint to the publisher instead. Was there any sort of proof produced for signing off on? In my experience, these can be really variable these days as far as colour goes, but I've caught a few problems this way, and a missing font sould have shown up.

Adrian
11-19-2005, 03:14 AM
Ann,

To add to the general confusion, at the end of the Package report, the "File Package List" does not include the missing font.

Best wishes, Adrian

annc
11-19-2005, 03:23 AM
To add to the general confusion, at the end of the Package report, the "File Package List" does not include the missing font.Well, that might just make things eaier, as long as everyone remembers to check the package list against the preflight list. But the object of the exercise with preflight and package is to ensure that there is nothing missing that should be included.

Michael Rowley
11-19-2005, 08:34 AM
Ann:

wondered if the report listed the missing font

It wasn't obvious to me that of the two reports, you meant a particular one. The missing font cited is Times New Roman Cyrillic, and it seemed to me that that someone must have got that information from a report. Sorry I misunderstood.

Adrian
11-20-2005, 03:20 AM
Ann,

We may have an explanation! It seems that InDesign sees our cyrillic font as "Japanese". Japanese (Asian/CJK/double-byte) fonts are not packaged by InDesign, perhaps because of licence restrictions.

They are however listed as "Japanese fonts" in the Package generated instructions.txt file, and you can double-check whether they have been included by checking the File Package List at the end of instructions.txt.

Not ideal, but a workaround. This "feature" may have been fixed in CS2.

Best wishes, Adrian

annc
11-20-2005, 11:23 AM
They are however listed as "Japanese fonts" in the Package generated instructions.txt file, and you can double-check whether they have been included by checking the File Package List at the end of instructions.txt.Ah, so it is mentioned in the report. I'll have to start reading that report! When my jobs preflight correctly, I never bother to read it.

Adrian
11-21-2005, 02:06 AM
Ann,

It would seem so!

Best wishes, Adrian

Michael Rowley
11-21-2005, 08:29 AM
Adrian:

The font in question is Times NR Cyrillic (PS1)

It would be rather strange if InDesign 3 (CS) mistook Times NR Cyrillic for a 'Japanese' font. On the other hand, Cyrillic glyphs have been included in the TT/OT font TNR, and presumably in the OTF font, for some time; it would not be expected that anyone would be using the TNR 'Cyrillic' nowadays (unless it contains glyphs that are not included in the TT/OT or OTF TNR font).

Adrian
11-21-2005, 09:28 AM
Michael,

Thanks for the message. If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that TNR TT would include all/most of the cyrillic characters. Are there other well-known fonts that we shouldn't be using? In this case, the project we were working on was an adaptation, so we were using the font set supplied by the publisher. The files were originally set up in Quark, so I presume that third-party preflight software was used, and that this is why the problem hadn't shown up before.

As ever, two steps forward, one step back!

Best wishes, Adrian

Michael Rowley
11-21-2005, 12:02 PM
Adrian:

is that TNR TT would include all/most of the cyrillic characters

Yes (I've looked to make sure). There are Cyrillic letters that are not used in Russian but may be in other languages, but the normal Cyrillic range in Unicode must surely include them.

Times Roman (or New Roman) is, I think, one of the fonts that are not usually, if ever, embedded; but if InDesign expects that TNR includes the Cyrillic glyphs, then if it assumes that TNR is available or discovers it is there, it possibly won't take special steps to secure the TNR Cyillic.

I don't know all the OT fonts that are commonly supplied with Windows or the Mac, but I know that OT TNR and Arial both have Cyrillic and Greek, thus covering all European languages. You'll get better information about modern font ranges from others in the forum.

Adrian
11-21-2005, 03:30 PM
Thanks, Michael. We'll look into this.

Best wishes, Adrian

iamback
11-22-2005, 12:17 AM
There are Cyrillic letters that are not used in Russian but may be in other languages, but the normal Cyrillic range in Unicode must surely include them.
Indeed. While they were still part of the Soviet Union, all Central European states used a cyrillic script to write their (Turkic) languages. But the character set used for Russian is not enough to write some of these. Uzbek, for instance, had three extra glyphs for sounds that don't occur in Russian. Since independance, several of these republics have (following the example of Kemal Ataturk in Turkey) switched to a roman spelling.

Uzbekistan was first with a new spelling; Turkmenistan followed a few years later (but managed to use some glyphs that did not uccur in Unicode and had to be made using "combining" codes - they corrected this several years later, using the equivalent letters as found in Turkish). But in Uzbekistan at least, you still see cyrillic script: while all schoolbooks have long been replaced, not all of the older generation have learned the new spelling so some -especially local- newspapers for instance are still produced in the old cyrillic spelling.

Kirghiz and Kazakh are still written in Cyrillic script (not likely to change) but I'm not sure whether these also need extra characters but since both are also Turkic languages that's not unlikely.

A full Cyrillic range in a Unicode font should include all these "extra" characters, of course.

Michael Rowley
11-22-2005, 09:19 AM
Marjolein:

all Central European states used a cyrillic script to write their (Turkic) languages

I wasn't thinking of those, but of church Russian, Serbian, and Macedonian, all Slavic languages normally written with Cyrillic. The Turkic languages can always use (modified) Latin script, as the Turks do, for the range covered by most OT fonts includes that too.

I didn't check the Cyrillic range, because I'm not competent to do so, but at least some of the characters are obsolete in modern Russian. More information is available in the Unicode book—set, incidentally in Minion.

Adrian
11-22-2005, 10:32 AM
Marjolein:

all Central European states used a cyrillic script to write their (Turkic) languages

I wasn't thinking of those, but of church Russian, Serbian, and Macedonian, all Slavic languages normally written with Cyrillic. The Turkic languages can always use (modified) Latin script, as the Turks do, for the range covered by most OT fonts includes that too.

I didn't check the Cyrillic range, because I'm not competent to do so, but at least some of the characters are obsolete in modern Russian. More information is available in the Unicode book—set, incidentally in Minion.
Michael,

More information is available in the Unicode book

What Unicode book is that?

Best wishes, Adrian

Michael Rowley
11-22-2005, 11:26 AM
Adrian:

What Unicode book is that?

It's called The Unicode Standard 4.0, ISBN 0=321-186578-1, 2003. Most of the content is on the Web: look for 'Unicode'.

There are 118 glyphs in the Cyrillic of OT TNR & Arial. I don't know whether all the glyphs required for the Turkic languages Marjolein mentioned as using Cyrillic scripts are there, but Unicode does cater for them, as well as for the Caucasian languages (such as Chechen), which she didn't mention.

Interestingly enough, the book (which is enormous) was set in Minion Maker, which doesn't recognize Unicode. So although Minion Pro contains a great many of the glyphs used, they would have had go to special fonts.

iamback
11-22-2005, 11:32 AM
all Central European states used a cyrillic script to write their (Turkic) languages

I wasn't thinking of those, but of church Russian, Serbian, and Macedonian, all Slavic languages normally written with Cyrillic.
While the use of Cyrillic script for Slavic languages is rather well-known, I mentioned the Central Asian Turkic languages precisely because their use of Cyrillic script is far less known. If you try Google 'define:Cyrillic' you'll find that in what it comes up with only the Wikipedia article gets it right and mentions the Turkic languages of Central Asia as well.

The Turkic languages can always use (modified) Latin script, as the Turks do, for the range covered by most OT fonts includes that too.
Well, theoretically they "can", but apart from Turkish only Uzbek and Turkmen actually do use a Latin script for their current official spelling. But the sounds in those languages are not exactly the same as in Turkish so coming up with their new spelling rules was not as simple as "just use Turkish characters" either: just like Cyrillic Russian doesn't have characters for the sounds that don't occur in Russian, the Turkish Latin script doesn't have characters for the sounds Turkish doesn't have. You cannot simply replace a Cyrillic character or a sound in a Turkic language by a Turkish character to come up with a Latin script for any Turkic language - such an "equivalent" character simply may not exist.

As far as I know all other Turkic languages spoken in the former Soviet Union (and in present-day Russia) still use a Cyrillic script. Apart from those there are many more Turkic languages (mostly in present-day China, from Xinjian in North-West China all the way to the Chinese coast across from Japan), some of which do not even have a written form at all but are spoken languages only. Uyghur, which used to have its own script (which inspired Genghiz Khan and ultimately led to the related Mongolian script) was at one time also written in Cyrillic script but after the arrival of Islam in those areas an Arabic script was adopted.

The Uzbek Latin script is very cleverly designed, by the way, as Uzbek can be written completely in ASCII characters - no need for Turkish characters at all!

I didn't check the Cyrillic range, because I'm not competent to do so, but at least some of the characters are obsolete in modern Russian. More information is available in the Unicode book—set, incidentally in Minion.
But the "extra" Cyrillic characters used for the old Uzbek spelling are not simply "obsolete in Russian" at all because they stand for sounds that simply do not exist in Russian.

Alas, elegant Georgia does not have all of the Uzbek Cyrillic glyphs: one is missing. Looking at some other fonts, the Cyrillic range in Times New Roman is more extensive, with 12 extra letters (both capitals and lowercase: 24 glyphs), including the missing Uzbek Cyrillic one. Arial has the same set as Times New Roman.

Disclaimer: apart from a smattering of Turkish I only really know something about Turkmen and Uzbek (and have most information about Uzbek, including a complete English translation of the new spelling rules); I know far less about Kirghiz, Kazakh and other Central-Asian Turkic languages.

Michael Rowley
11-22-2005, 11:48 AM
Marjolein:

I mentioned the Central Asian Turkic languages precisely because their use of Cyrillic script is far less known

But well known to the authors of Unicode, which includes all the known modifications of Cyrillic scripts used for the Turkic & Caucasian languages. In the standard it is also mentioned that for some of the Turkic languages, Arabic, Cyrillic, and Latin scripts have been or are being used.

Glagolitic, by the way, is treated separate from Cyrillic. I shouldn't have thought they were very closely related, except through their devisers and for both being used for Slavic languages at some time.