I have found this solution:

Save the offending file as .mif and then open the .mif file with a 
text editor to view the underlying code. Search for the missing font 
and delete the text that uses it. Save the file and then resave as .fm.

This is the only foolproof solution I've found!

Mimi Boral

At 02:00 AM 2/7/2008, framers-request at lists.frameusers.com wrote:
>This message has been processed by Symantec's AntiVirus Technology.
>
>Unknown00000000.data was not scanned for viruses because too many 
>nested levels of files were found.
>
>
>For more information on antivirus tips and technology, visit
>http://ses.symantec.com/
>Received: from hrndva-av07 ([10.128.137.11]) by hrndva-qmta02.mail.rr.com
>           with ESMTP
>           id <20080207093006.VVAX21949.hrndva-qmta02.mail.rr.com at 
> hrndva-av07>
>           for <miriamb at austin.rr.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:30:06 +0000
>Received: from hrndva-mxlb.mail.rr.com ([10.128.255.7])
>           by hrndva-imta07.mail.rr.com with ESMTP
>           id 
> <20080207092503.VWPT30.hrndva-imta07.mail.rr.com at hrndva-mxlb.mail.rr.com>
>           for <miriamb at austin.rr.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:25:03 +0000
>X-IronPort: hrndva-mx04.mail.rr.com 397640767
>X-RR-Connecting-IP: 206.168.112.232
>Received: from v7.raycomm.com (HELO lists.frameusers.com) ([206.168.112.232])
>   by hrndva-mxlb.mail.rr.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2008 09:25:03 +0000
>Received: from [206.168.112.232] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
>         by lists.frameusers.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADA39455D1
>         for <miriamb at austin.rr.com>; Thu,  7 Feb 2008 01:00:23 -0700 (MST)
>From: framers-request at lists.frameusers.com
>Subject: Framers Digest, Vol 28, Issue 7
>To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Reply-To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:00:01 -0700
>Message-ID: <mailman.1.1202371201.18130.framers at lists.frameusers.com>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-BeenThere: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
>Precedence: list
>List-Id: "An email list for FrameMaker discussions."
>         <framers.lists.frameusers.com>
>List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/listinfo/framers>,
>         <mailto:framers-request at lists.frameusers.com?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://lists.frameusers.com/pipermail/framers>
>List-Post: <mailto:framers at lists.frameusers.com>
>List-Help: <mailto:framers-request at lists.frameusers.com?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: <http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/listinfo/framers>,
>         <mailto:framers-request at lists.frameusers.com?subject=subscribe>
>Sender: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com
>Errors-To: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
>         boundary="CFHIKMOPRTUWYabdfhikmnprtuwy013578ACDFHJ"
>X-BLTSYMAVREINSERT: CZ4xz7SqREfRYnxRYUpUJDZ/yb8A
>
>This message has been processed by Symantec's AntiVirus Technology.
>
>Unknown00000000.data was not scanned for viruses because too many 
>nested levels of files were found.
>
>
>For more information on antivirus tips and technology, visit
>http://ses.symantec.com/
>Received: from hrndva-mxlb.mail.rr.com ([10.128.255.7])
>           by hrndva-imta07.mail.rr.com with ESMTP
>           id 
> <20080207092503.VWPT30.hrndva-imta07.mail.rr.com at hrndva-mxlb.mail.rr.com>
>           for <miriamb at austin.rr.com>; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:25:03 +0000
>X-IronPort: hrndva-mx04.mail.rr.com 397640767
>X-RR-Connecting-IP: 206.168.112.232
>Received: from v7.raycomm.com (HELO lists.frameusers.com) ([206.168.112.232])
>   by hrndva-mxlb.mail.rr.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2008 09:25:03 +0000
>Received: from [206.168.112.232] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
>         by lists.frameusers.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADA39455D1
>         for <miriamb at austin.rr.com>; Thu,  7 Feb 2008 01:00:23 -0700 (MST)
>From: framers-request at lists.frameusers.com
>Subject: Framers Digest, Vol 28, Issue 7
>To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Reply-To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:00:01 -0700
>Message-ID: <mailman.1.1202371201.18130.framers at lists.frameusers.com>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-BeenThere: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
>Precedence: list
>List-Id: "An email list for FrameMaker discussions."
>         <framers.lists.frameusers.com>
>List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/listinfo/framers>,
>         <mailto:framers-request at lists.frameusers.com?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://lists.frameusers.com/pipermail/framers>
>List-Post: <mailto:framers at lists.frameusers.com>
>List-Help: <mailto:framers-request at lists.frameusers.com?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: <http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/listinfo/framers>,
>         <mailto:framers-request at lists.frameusers.com?subject=subscribe>
>Sender: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com
>Errors-To: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com
>
>Send Framers mailing list submissions to
>         framers at lists.frameusers.com
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/listinfo/framers
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         framers-request at lists.frameusers.com
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>         framers-owner at lists.frameusers.com
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Framers digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Internal Error (Shmuel Wolfson)
>    2. Re: Revising Help topics created in WebWorks (Yves Barbion)
>    3. RE: Working with Images (richard.melanson at us.tel.com)
>    4. RE: Working with Images (Dennis Brunnenmeyer)
>    5. Re: keep with next para (Stuart Rogers)
>    6. RE: keep with next para (Combs, Richard)
>    7. Re: Working with Images (Stuart Rogers)
>    8. Re: Duplicating a two-page section (Stuart Rogers)
>    9. Re: Working with Images (Peter Gold)
>   10. page layout for a double-wide table  (Ben Hechter)
>   11. RE: Working with Images (Dennis Brunnenmeyer)
>   12. FM8 now works for us (Austin Meredith)
>   13. "unavailable fonts" problem: URGENT (Brewster, Christopher C)
>   14. Re: page layout for a double-wide table (Stuart Rogers)
>   15. Re: "unavailable fonts" problem: URGENT (Bill Swallow)
>   16. Question about applying and removing character tags in FM6.0
>       (maxwell.hoffmann)
>   17. RE: Question about applying and removing character tags in
>       FM6.0 (Owen, Clint)
>   18. Distiller 7 missing fonts (Shuttleworth, Roger)
>   19. RE: Distiller 7 missing fonts (Owen, Clint)
>   20. Re: Working with Images (Stuart Rogers)
>   21. RE: Distiller 7 missing fonts (Alan Litchfield)
>   22. RE: Distiller 7 missing fonts (rebecca officer)
>   23. Re: Distiller 7 missing fonts (Mike Wickham)
>   24. Re: Question about applying and removing character tags in
>       FM6.0 (Peter Gold)
>   25. re: keep with next para (solved) (Graeme R Forbes)
>   26. RE: Distiller 7 missing fonts (Jacob Sch?ffer)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:22:24 +0200
>From: Shmuel Wolfson <sbw at actcom.com>
>Subject: Internal Error
>To: Framers <framers at lists.frameusers.com>
>Message-ID: <47A99870.8020608 at actcom.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>I occasionally have the dreaded "Internal Error" after a search in FM,
>then FM closes. Would extra RAM help? I have 1 GB of RAM now.
>
>--
>Regards,
>Shmuel Wolfson
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:43:37 +0100
>From: Yves Barbion <yves.barbion at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Revising Help topics created in WebWorks
>To: Rebecca Martin <rmartin at radcomservices.com>
>Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Message-ID: <47A99D69.2050603 at gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Hi Rebecca,
>
>if you only need to change the text in the footer, the easiest (and
>cheapest) way is to open all the HTML files in a plain text editor and
>do a global search and replace there. For example, you could use EditPad
>Lite for this: http://www.editpadpro.com/editpadlite.html
>
>Thus, you don't have to upgrade WebWorks (or FrameMaker).
>
>Good luck.
>
>Yves Barbion
>Documentation Architect
>Adobe-Certified FrameMaker Instructor
>____________________________________
>
>Scripto bvba
>Asselsstraat 65
>9031 Gent
>Belgium
>T: +32 494 12 01 89
>F: +32 9 366 50 23
>BTW (VAT) BE 0886.192.394
>skype: yves.barbion
>____________________________________
>
>
>
>Rebecca Martin wrote:
> > I have a legacy Help project that was created in Frame7.1 and published via
> > Webworks Publisher 2003 for FrameMaker. We need to make changes to the
> > footer in every topic, but have been unable to find the project file for
> > editing. I was told we should make the changes in Frame and republish the
> > help with Webworks. Unfortunately, it looks like we cannot make changes to
> > the current project unless we use the WebWorks Publisher Professional
> > Edition 7.0. (That would require us to upgrade, but we're not sure the
> > current version of FM would work with it.)
> >
> >
> >
> > Is that a correct assumption?
> >
> >
> >
> > Is there a project file we should be looking for? We have found .wdt and
> > .wfp files, none of which open the project.
> >
> >
> >
> > Any advice on how to proceed?
> >
> >
> >
> > Rebecca R. Martin
> >
> > Professional Services Manager
> >
> > Radcom, Inc.
> >
> > 1696 Georgetown Rd., Unit A
> >
> > Hudson, OH 44236
> >
> > 330-650-4777, X 109
> >
> > www.radcomservices.com
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> > You are currently subscribed to Framers as yves.barbion at gmail.com.
> >
> > Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com.
> >
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com
> > or visit 
> http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/yves.barbion%40gmail.com
> >
> > Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit
> > http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
> >
> >
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:26:38 -0500
>From: <richard.melanson at us.tel.com>
>Subject: RE: Working with Images
>To: <dennisb at chronometrics.com>, <ideaslists at ideastraining.com>,
>         <framers at lists.frameusers.com>
>Message-ID:
>         <DBB2E440DE7DB54C80998A2D274B9EDC0107FBBC at temis0520.us.tel.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="US-ASCII"
>
>Dude, you may be the expert on this, and the info you supplied in 
>your response is so good I am saving it, but how about a little 
>respect for everyone on the list. I believe whatever anyone said in 
>an attempt to help they believed to be accurate and helpful. To say 
>and I quote you "Well, I've had enough of this nonsensical babble. 
>None of you seem to understand what you are talking about when it" 
>is a little strong. Life is too short, take a deep breath and enjoy!!
>Rick
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com 
>[mailto:framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Dennis 
>Brunnenmeyer
>Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 2:37 PM
>To: David Creamer; framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Subject: RE: Working with Images
>
>Rant begins...
>
>Well, I've had enough of this nonsensical babble. None of you seem 
>to understand what you are talking about when it comes to dealing 
>with screenshots and raster images, (a.k.a. bitmapped images) as 
>opposed to vector or llne art.
>
>First of all, display devices, whether printers or monitors, have an 
>upper limit on their ability to resolve (print or display) image 
>detail, which by the way is what "resolution" is a measure 
>of...meaningful detail. The best my aging but faithful laser printer 
>can do is 600 dpi, while my uppity LCD monitor can display up to 100 
>dpi, with its1600 x 1200 native resolution on an LCD panel that is 
>exactly 16" wide x 12" tall."  You cannot see nor capture anything 
>and create a screenshot image with higher resolution than the 
>display device. You cannot print anything with higher resolution 
>than the printer can resolve. If you feed a high resolution image to 
>a medium resolution printer, it will interpolate (resample) the 
>image down to medium resolution quality. It has to, as it cannot put 
>all of that information on paper. If you take an very high 
>resolution (total pixel count) image of size 4000 x 3000 pixels (12 
>megapixels) and display the full image it on a monitor like mine, you
>   will
>not see all of detail in the image and hence you will not be able to 
>capture all of the detail in a screenshot.
>
>Most of you seem to appreciate this, but some of you think you can 
>improve resolution by artificial means. No, you cannot.
>
>A true measure of the resolution of an image is the original size of 
>the image in total pixels, assuming it is true to begin with. That 
>is, assuming a perfect digital camera with a perfect lens and the 
>ability to produce a "raw" bitmap (rather than a compressed JPEG 
>file), that 12 megapixel CCD image sensor will produce a significant 
>improvement in the resulting image over a 2 megapixel CCD sensor.
>That image quality is NOT described by either ppi or dpi. It is a 
>function of the number of pixels in the X direction and the number 
>of pixels in the Y direction.
>
>Now the plot thickens when I return to the subject of screenshots, 
>because if I run my graphics card at 1600 x 1200, the type, icons 
>and dialog boxes are uncomfortably small for me to read on the 
>monitor, so I set the graphics card to display its images at 1280 x 960 dpi.
>At this point, the maximum image size that can be displayed without 
>loss of resolution is now 80 ppi. That's 1280 divided by 16.
>[Unfortunately, since the graphics card's resolution doesn't match 
>the native resolution of the LCD panel, the on-screen picture is not 
>as crisp as it could be. This is a result of "aliasing" artifacts, 
>but that's a topic for a different thread.]
>
>Note that in the above paragraph, I switched from dpi for display 
>devices to ppi when describing image size. This is a meature of the 
>physical size of a digital image (as printed or displayed) and 
>should be described in ppi. The ability of a device to display or 
>print an image should be described in dpi, or alternatively, lpi for 
>lines per inch, or pixel spacing, as in 0.25mm. There is a tendency 
>to intermix this terminology and hence confuse the issues you are discussing.
>
>Now that I have set my graphics card to 1280 x 960 for this monitor, 
>the maximum resolution of any image I capture from the screen is 80 
>ppi, regardless of whether I capture a whole screen or just a region 
>of it. If I set the "resolution" of the screen capture program 
>(Snag-It or HyperSnap) to 80 ppi, then the resulting image will be 
>the same physical size as it appeared on the screen, 100%. If I set 
>the capture "resolution" to 160 ppi, then the image will be half the 
>physical size as it appeared on the screen, BUT IT WILL HAVE EXACTLY 
>THE SAME NUMBER OF PIXELS. The resolution has not be improved, as no 
>more detail has been added.
>
>Upsampling and/or downsampling using any kind of pixel resampling 
>(a.k.a. interpolation), whether bicubic or otherwise, ALWAYS removes 
>detail from the image. In either case, new pixels are created that 
>are some kind of average of the original ones. They're guesses at 
>what shoud be there at that point in the image, and not real 
>information that wasn't there before. No new detail nor image 
>improvement can be added by interpolation.
>
>Now, however, you can re-scale an image in programs like Photoshop 
>by keeping the same number of pixels (do not interpolate) and 
>altering the size of the image in the X and Y directions equally. 
>For example, if I took the 160 ppi screenshot described in the 
>previous paragraph and re-scaled it in Photoshop without  resampling 
>the image, and if I prescribed a new size of 80 ppi, the resulting 
>image would grow back to 100% in size and have still have exactly 
>the same number of pixels as before. The resolving power of the 
>image has not changed, and no more detail has been provided. This is 
>a correct way to get an image to the size you want it in your 
>document. Another way is to import it as is and resize it in Frame 
>using the image's corner anchor points while holding the Shift key down.
>
>Don't mislead yourselves and others by thinking that the more 
>"resolution" in your screenshot capture application you use gives 
>you better results, and don't mislead yourselves by thinking you can 
>add more resolution by upsampling (or rescaling, for that matter) to 
>a different ppi or by adding more artificial pixels.
>
>Now, on another topic, there seems to be a rule of thumb that "most 
>SVGA screens are 96dpi." Someone came up with the statement that a 
>20" screen with a 1280 x 1024 display is, of course, 96 dpi. That's 
>utter nonsense. Given that screen size is measured on the diagonal, 
>and assuming the old standard 4:3 aspect ratio, a 20" screen is 16"
>wide and 12" tall...rather like my Samsung LCDs. With 1280 pixels in 
>the X (horizontal) direction, the screen resolution is 80 dpi, not 
>96 dpi. Any way you manipulate the numbers, 96 dpi is not a result. 
>By the way, here I assumed a 4:3 aspect ratio, which is the ratio of 
>width to height. If I ran my graphics card at 1280 x 1024, circles 
>would be egg-shaped, since that resolution calls for a screen with a
>5:4 aspect ratio. Of course, wide screens have a different aspect 
>ratio, but the principles are exactly the same.
>
>I have no idea what David meant by this statement:  "Again, 
>referring to my last post, monitor resolution only counts if 
>capturing an entire screen." Monitor size DOES count if you're 
>trying to calculate the resolving power of your monitor in dpi and 
>hence the maximum resolution attainable in a screenshot. It's the 
>horizontal resolution of your graphics card setting divided by the 
>width of the display area in inches or centimeters, or in the example given,
>1280/16 = 80 dpi.
>
>End of rant ...
>
>Flame away...but be sure you know what you are talking about and 
>quit misleading others if you don't understand this.
>
>Dennis Brunnenmeyer
>***************************************************************************************
>
>
>At 09:09 AM 2/5/2008, David Creamer wrote:
> > > How can SnagIt capture an image at a higher resolution than what the
> > > screen is set to?  A 20" screen at 1280 x 1024, for example, is 96
> > DPI.  How do you
> > > get 200 DPI out of that?
> >
> >Screen size (20") is meaningless, only the monitor resolution counts.
> >Again, referring to my last post, monitor resolution only counts if
> >capturing an entire screen.
>
>Dennis Brunnenmeyer
>Director of Engineering
>CEDAR RIDGE SYSTEMS
>15019 Rattlesnake Road
>Grass Valley, CA 95945-8710
>Office: (530) 477-9015
>Fax:  (530) 477-9085
>Mobile: (530) 320-9025
>eMail:  dennisb /at/ chronometrics /dot/ com 
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>You are currently subscribed to Framers as richard.melanson at us.tel.com.
>
>Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com.
>
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com
>or visit 
>http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/richard.melanson%40us.tel.com
>
>Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit 
>http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:18:35 -0800
>From: Dennis Brunnenmeyer <dennisb at chronometrics.com>
>Subject: RE: Working with Images
>To: David Creamer <ideaslists at ideastraining.com>,
>         framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Message-ID: <20080205231808.3BD0B45EE4 at lists.frameusers.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>David...
>
>This was not an attack on you. Please see my remarks embedded below.
>
>Dennis...
>****************************************************************************
>At 02:07 PM 2/5/2008, you wrote:
> >On Dennis Brunnenmeyer at dennisb at chronometrics.com wrote on 2/5/08 11:36
> >AM:
> >
> > > Rant begins...
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > First of all, display devices, whether printers or monitors, 
> have an upper
> > > limit on their ability to resolve (print or display) image 
> detail, which by
> > > the way is what "resolution" is a measure of...meaningful detail.
> > The best my
> > > aging but faithful laser printer can do is 600 dpi, while my uppity LCD
> > > monitor can display up to 100 dpi, with its1600 x 1200 native
> > resolution on an
> > > LCD panel that is exactly 16" wide x 12" tall."
> >You are totally ignoring line screen (aka LPI) when printing. Using the
> >formula will determine the quality of the output on a black-only laser
> >printer:
> >(Output Resolution/Screen Frequency)^2 [squared] +1 = total number of gray
> >levels available to the printer.
> >So a 600dpi printer at 100 LPI gives you only 37 levels of gray. For photos,
> >you need around 200 levels of gray to look natural.
> >
> >For commercial offset printing, one should use the following guideline:
> >PPI= LPI x 1.5. (Some use LPI x 2, but 1.5 is normally enough.)
>
>I was referring to true image resolution. By resampling to a higher
>pixel-squared number, you have not increased the resolution of the
>image. No new detail is revealed that wasn't there before. However, I
>will grant that you may *enhance* the appearance when printing in
>this manner by falsifying the image to a degree.
>
>
> > > You cannot see nor capture
> > > anything and create a screenshot image with higher resolution
> > than the display
> > > device......
> >I think I said something similar to that.
>
>I think you're probably right about that. However, several people
>have implied, that capturing a screen image at, say, 160 ppi gives
>more detail. This cannot be if the display resolution is set to 80 or
>100 dpi. The end result is that the same number of pixels are
>captured but with a higher ppi value, meaning as you have pointed out
>that the image is "physically" smaller.
>
>
> > >
> > > Most of you seem to appreciate this, but some of you think you 
> can improve
> > > resolution by artificial means. No, you cannot.
> >I think I said something similar to that.
>
>No, you said this: "One can, however, add extra resolution to the
>image, but that is usually detrimental
>to the quality of the image."
>
>Only the last half of this sentence is correct.
>
> > >
> > > A true measure of the resolution of an image is the original size
> > of the image
> > > in total pixels, assuming it is true to begin with.
> >I think I said something similar to that.
>
>No reasonable person could disagree with that, and I think you are
>reasonable enough to have said that. Of course, in the case of color
>images, color depth counts too.
>
>
> > >[Unfortunately, since the graphics card's resolution doesn't
> > > match the native resolution of the LCD panel, the on-screen
> > picture is not as
> > > crisp as it could be. This is a result of "aliasing" artifacts,
> > but that's a
> > > topic for a different thread.]
> >I believe you are confusing what you see on screen to what is actually being
> >captured.
>
>Actually, I'm not. The artifacts I see due to pixel aliasing on the
>screen are just annoying visual impairments specific to the display
>technology and not an indication of the quality of the image itself.
>
> > >
> > >
> > >..... If I set the capture "resolution" to 160 ppi, then the
> > > image will be half the physical size as it appeared on the
> > screen, BUT IT WILL
> > > HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF PIXELS. The resolution has not be
> > improved, as
> > > no more detail has been added.
> >I think I said something similar to that.
>
>Yes, you did and you are correct.
>
> > >
> > >.... No new detail nor
> > > image improvement can be added by interpolation.
> >I think I said something similar to that.
> >However, I suspect you have not used nearest neighbor interpolation too
> >much.
>
>"Improvement" in the sense that I meant it was intended to convey an
>improvement in actual accuracy. As you pointed out above, you can
>"enhance" some images this way by interpolating in new gray-scale or
>color values to yield a prettier but partially-false result. But you
>would NOT want to interpolate using any methodology in order to
>"enhance" a screen shot of a Windows dialog box. For the same reason,
>one should not save those kinds of screen shots as JPEG images.
>
>
> > >
> > > I have no idea what David meant by this statement:  "Again, 
> referring to my
> > > last post, monitor resolution only counts if
> > > capturing an entire screen."
> >I thought it was pretty clear. 1280x1040 is the same amount to X/Y pixel
> >data on a 17 inch monitor, a 19 inch monitor, or a 20 inch monitor.
>
>That's very true, but that's irrelevant to what I quoted above. Your
>sentence makes no sense.
>
> > >
> > > Flame away...
> >I try not to flame or rant as I think it dilutes the message and reflects
> >poorly on the messenger.
>
>I don't like to rant either. I did it to draw attention to certain
>misleading concepts that are being promulgated in this thread.
>
>
> >David Creamer
> >I.D.E.A.S. - Results-Oriented Training
> >http://www.IDEAStraining.com
> >Adobe Certified Trainer & Expert (since 1995)
> >Authorized Quark Training Provider (since 1988)
> >Markzware, Enfocus, FileMaker Certified
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >You are currently subscribed to Framers as dennisb at chronometrics.com.
> >
> >Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com.
> >
> >To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> >framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com
> >or visit
> >http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/dennisb%40chron 
> ometrics.com
> >
> >Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit
> >http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
>
>Dennis Brunnenmeyer
>Director of Engineering
>CEDAR RIDGE SYSTEMS
>15019 Rattlesnake Road
>Grass Valley, CA 95945-8710
>Office: (530) 477-9015
>Fax:  (530) 477-9085
>Mobile: (530) 320-9025
>eMail:  dennisb /at/ chronometrics /dot/ com
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:54:07 -0500
>From: Stuart Rogers <srogers at phoenix-geophysics.com>
>Subject: Re: keep with next para
>To: Graeme R Forbes <Graeme.Forbes at Colorado.EDU>
>Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Message-ID: <47A9F43F.5020204 at phoenix-geophysics.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Graeme R Forbes wrote:
> > I have a proof consisting in a sequence of lines across a page, each
> > a paragraph, and  each line separated from the next by a shallow
> > anchored frame that contains a separator line. Each line/para is set
> > to keep with the next one since the whole proof must display on the
> > same page. However, in order to get one of the lines to fit across
> > the page, I had to use a soft return, and FM allows the proof to
> > break across the page at the soft return. Is there some way of
> > preventing this while retaining the soft return, or will I have to
> > use two paragraphs?
> >
>
>Chiming in late here, but did you ever get a resolution to this?
>
>I don't fully understand how inserting a soft return caused a single
>line to fit across the page -- surely that must have resulted in two lines??
>
>At any rate, I would use the Frame Below property to add the separator
>line, and I would specify a large number of Widow/Orphan lines on the
>pagination tab.  My test document in FM 7.0 does not break a pgf at a
>soft return with Orphans set to 5, so I think that would work with your
>   one or two line situation.
>
>HTH,
>
>--
>Stuart Rogers
>Technical Communicator
>Phoenix Geophysics Limited
>Toronto, ON, Canada
>+1 (416) 491-7340 x 325
>
>srogers phoenix-geophysics com
>
>If it makes things work more easily, why isn't it called lubrican?
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 11:14:00 -0700
>From: "Combs, Richard" <richard.combs at Polycom.com>
>Subject: RE: keep with next para
>To: "Stuart Rogers" <srogers at phoenix-geophysics.com>,   "Graeme R
>         Forbes" <Graeme.Forbes at Colorado.EDU>
>Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Message-ID:
> 
><AABEB232F95338499DF8F513EE2B2C78A69D51 at WSTEXCH00.westminster.polycom.com>
>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
>Stuart Rogers wrote:
>
> > Graeme R Forbes wrote:
> > > I have a proof consisting in a sequence of lines across a
> > page, each a
> > > paragraph, and  each line separated from the next by a shallow
> > > anchored frame that contains a separator line. Each
> > line/para is set
> > > to keep with the next one since the whole proof must display on the
> > > same page. However, in order to get one of the lines to fit
> > across the
> > > page, I had to use a soft return, and FM allows the proof to break
> > > across the page at the soft return. Is there some way of preventing
> > > this while retaining the soft return, or will I have to use two
> > > paragraphs?
> > >
> >
> > Chiming in late here, but did you ever get a resolution to this?
> >
> > I don't fully understand how inserting a soft return caused a
> > single line to fit across the page -- surely that must have
> > resulted in two lines??
>
>I don't understand that either, or the separator lines. But more
>fundamentally, if FM is putting in a page break, it's because the entire
>proof (all the "keep with next" paragraphs plus whatever follows the
>last) *won't fit on one page*. Nothing you do with Keep With and
>Widow/Orphan settings will change that.
>
>If you want to avoid a page break, change the pgfs' space above/below,
>the line spacing, the anchored frame -- or, heck, change the height of
>the text frame. IOW, do something to make it all fit on one page, and FM
>won't try to break it across pages.
>
>HTH!
>Richard
>
>
>------
>Richard G. Combs
>Senior Technical Writer
>Polycom, Inc.
>richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
>303-223-5111
>------
>rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom
>303-777-0436
>------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:36:59 -0500
>From: Stuart Rogers <srogers at phoenix-geophysics.com>
>Subject: Re: Working with Images
>Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com, John Sgammato
>         <jsgammato at IMPRIVATA.com>
>Message-ID: <47A9FE4B.5040304 at phoenix-geophysics.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>John Sgammato wrote:
> > ...
>
> > Note that with SnagIt you can opt to capture the image at other
> > resolutions, so you need not change anything in FM. I capture images
> > as 200dpi TIFFs, and then import them at 200dpi in my books. I go to
> > print, PDF, and online help from a single set of screenshots.
>
>John, your workflow is appropriate, but you're not quite correct on why.
>
>You are not capturing the image "at other resolutions," or really at any
>resolution.  You are capturing a specific number of pixels.  At the time
>of capture, they are *displayed* at your screen resolution (pixels per
>inch, ppi; not dpi).  Put that captured image on another screen with
>different graphics card resolution, and the identical number of pixels
>will be displayed on that screen, with different physical dimensions
>because that screen positions the pixels closer or farther apart
>(different number of ppi).  None of that matters when it comes to
>putting the image in FM.
>
>When you tell SnagIt or FM or Photoshop or any other program that an
>image is xxx dpi, you are simply giving it an instruction to pass along
>to the print device that it should place the dots 1/xxx inch apart.  If
>you tell SnagIt you want the image to be 200 dpi, it tells FM the same
>thing; when you import "at 200dpi", you're telling FM the same thing.
>FM renders an approximation of that on screen, as well as passing the
>instruction on to the print driver.  The image that you captured, unless
>manipulated by some sort of interpolation, can only contain the number
>of pixels that formed the original object on screen.  Telling SnagIt
>200dpi or 50dpi does not change the number of pixels or the size of the
>file; it only changes the distance between dots when printed (and the
>size of FM's on-screen approximation).
>
>Best regards,
>
>--
>Stuart Rogers
>Technical Communicator
>Phoenix Geophysics Limited
>Toronto, ON, Canada
>+1 (416) 491-7340 x 325
>
>srogers phoenix-geophysics com
>
>If it makes things work more easily, why isn't it called lubrican?
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 8
>Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:52:25 -0500
>From: Stuart Rogers <srogers at phoenix-geophysics.com>
>Subject: Re: Duplicating a two-page section
>To: "Brewster, Christopher C" <christopher.c.brewster at lmco.com>
>Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Message-ID: <47AA01E9.9060502 at phoenix-geophysics.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Brewster, Christopher C wrote:
> > I'm learning FM as I go, out of necessity. I need to make an alternative
> > version of a procedure, so I need a copy of the original appearing just
> > after it, which I'll modify.
>
>Should be dead easy.
>
>The procedure contains a linked graphic.
>
>Makes no difference.
>
> > Simply copying a page didn't work because its contents were inserted
> > into another page.
>
>No clue what you mean here.
>
>So I used Special > Add Disconnected Pages. It's OK
> > to be disconnected because each procedure starts at the top of a page.
>
>No, I don't think this is what you want.  Disconnected pages will run
>you into maintenance headaches later on.  You want to keep all your
>pages in a single connected flow, I'm sure.
>
> > The text copied in fine, but the linked graphic needs to appear at the
> > top, above the heading. FM won't let me put it there.
>
>Yes it will.  You need to find out what the properties are of the
>anchored frame containing the graphic.  If the anchor is in a text
>paragraph, set the frame's position to Top of Column.  (My preferred way
>to anchor frames is to put them in their own dedicated and otherwise
>empty pgf, which can then have its own position and spacing properties.)
>
> > Any solution to the above appreciated, or just an easier way to copy two
> > pages and insert the copy after the original.
>
>Select the material you want to copy and press Ctrl-C; position the
>insertion point where you want the duplicate to appear and press Ctrl-V.
>   Use the Paragraph Designer to set the pagination properties of your
>procedures' first paragraph to Start At Top of Page.
>
>(If you still run into problems, send me your file off list and I'll
>sort it out for you.)
>
>HTH,
>
>--
>Stuart Rogers
>Technical Communicator
>Phoenix Geophysics Limited
>Toronto, ON, Canada
>+1 (416) 491-7340 x 325
>
>srogers phoenix-geophysics com
>
>If it makes things work more easily, why isn't it called lubrican?
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 9
>Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:05:09 -0600
>From: "Peter Gold" <peter at knowhowpro.com>
>Subject: Re: Working with Images
>To: "Stuart Rogers" <srogers at phoenix-geophysics.com>
>Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com, John Sgammato
>         <jsgammato at imprivata.com>
>Message-ID:
>         <905e72990802061105i22f38f21x7429c659c714f72f at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>I don't think I've seen a mention about the variation of screen-pixel
>size among different monitor brands and models. I realize that
>although a screen pixel that's .35mm square, and one that's .25mm
>square create different on-screen image sizes and granularity for the
>same image, say 100px x 100px, screen-pixel size doesn't affect a
>printed image. However, screen-pixel size does affect the appearance
>of the size of the original image, and of a PDF of that image.
>
>Isn't it as important to standardize on the screen-pixel size of
>monitors in a work flow, just as it is to employ standard screen
>calibration, and standard lighting for viewing printed output?
>
>(No rants were harmed during the creation of this question.)<G>
>
>Regards,
>
>Peter
>_______________________________
>Peter Gold
>KnowHow ProServices
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 10
>Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 11:15:23 -0800 (PST)
>From: Ben Hechter <bhechter at yahoo.com>
>Subject: page layout for a double-wide table
>To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Message-ID: <474183.42517.qm at web30708.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>Just curious, has anyone attempted a 2-page master page layout for a 
>lengthy double-wide table? Beyond a compressed landscape format, all 
>I can come up with at this point is some sort of artificial 11x17 
>page size, but am stumped further...
>
>Thanks for any help,
>
>Ben
>
>
>Ben Hechter
>bhechter at objectives.ca
>www.semitake.com
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 11
>Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:10:36 -0800
>From: Dennis Brunnenmeyer <dennisb at chronometrics.com>
>Subject: RE: Working with Images
>To: <richard.melanson at us.tel.com>,<framers at lists.frameusers.com>
>Message-ID: <20080206190950.DB21145587 at lists.frameusers.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>Rick...
>
>You are very correct about my brashness. My apologies to all of you.
>I was anxious to try and squelch some misconceptions and got carried
>away. David Creamer was particularly incensed with me because he
>thought I was aiming the whole rant at him. This was not the case, of
>course, but I can see his point. in the meantime, he and I have
>called a truce, as we both have better things to do.
>
>Dude...
>******************************************
>At 06:26 AM 2/6/2008, richard.melanson at us.tel.com wrote:
> >Dude, you may be the expert on this, and the info you supplied in
> >your response is so good I am saving it, but how about a little
> >respect for everyone on the list. I believe whatever anyone said in
> >an attempt to help they believed to be accurate and helpful. To say
> >and I quote you "Well, I've had enough of this nonsensical babble.
> >None of you seem to understand what you are talking about when it"
> >is a little strong. Life is too short, take a deep breath and enjoy!!
> >Rick
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com
> >[mailto:framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Dennis 
> Brunnenmeyer
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 2:37 PM
> >To: David Creamer; framers at lists.frameusers.com
> >Subject: RE: Working with Images
> >
> >Rant begins...
> >
> >Well, I've had enough of this nonsensical babble. None of you seem
> >to understand what you are talking about when it comes to dealing
> >with screenshots and raster images, (a.k.a. bitmapped images) as
> >opposed to vector or llne art.
> >
> >First of all, display devices, whether printers or monitors, have an
> >upper limit on their ability to resolve (print or display) image
> >detail, which by the way is what "resolution" is a measure
> >of...meaningful detail. The best my aging but faithful laser printer
> >can do is 600 dpi, while my uppity LCD monitor can display up to 100
> >dpi, with its1600 x 1200 native resolution on an LCD panel that is
> >exactly 16" wide x 12" tall."  You cannot see nor capture anything
> >and create a screenshot image with higher resolution than the
> >display device. You cannot print anything with higher resolution
> >than the printer can resolve. If you feed a high resolution image to
> >a medium resolution printer, it will interpolate (resample) the
> >image down to medium resolution quality. It has to, as it cannot put
> >all of that information on paper. If you take an very high
> >resolution (total pixel count) image of size 4000 x 3000 pixels (12
> >megapixels) and display the full image it on a monitor like mine, you will
> >not see all of detail in the image and hence you will not be able to
> >capture all of the detail in a screenshot.
> >
> >Most of you seem to appreciate this, but some of you think you can
> >improve resolution by artificial means. No, you cannot.
> >
> >A true measure of the resolution of an image is the original size of
> >the image in total pixels, assuming it is true to begin with. That
> >is, assuming a perfect digital camera with a perfect lens and the
> >ability to produce a "raw" bitmap (rather than a compressed JPEG
> >file), that 12 megapixel CCD image sensor will produce a significant
> >improvement in the resulting image over a 2 megapixel CCD sensor.
> >That image quality is NOT described by either ppi or dpi. It is a
> >function of the number of pixels in the X direction and the number
> >of pixels in the Y direction.
> >
> >Now the plot thickens when I return to the subject of screenshots,
> >because if I run my graphics card at 1600 x 1200, the type, icons
> >and dialog boxes are uncomfortably small for me to read on the
> >monitor, so I set the graphics card to display its images at 1280 x 960 dpi.
> >At this point, the maximum image size that can be displayed without
> >loss of resolution is now 80 ppi. That's 1280 divided by 16.
> >[Unfortunately, since the graphics card's resolution doesn't match
> >the native resolution of the LCD panel, the on-screen picture is not
> >as crisp as it could be. This is a result of "aliasing" artifacts,
> >but that's a topic for a different thread.]
> >
> >Note that in the above paragraph, I switched from dpi for display
> >devices to ppi when describing image size. This is a meature of the
> >physical size of a digital image (as printed or displayed) and
> >should be described in ppi. The ability of a device to display or
> >print an image should be described in dpi, or alternatively, lpi for
> >lines per inch, or pixel spacing, as in 0.25mm. There is a tendency
> >to intermix this terminology and hence confuse the issues you are 
> discussing.
> >
> >Now that I have set my graphics card to 1280 x 960 for this monitor,
> >the maximum resolution of any image I capture from the screen is 80
> >ppi, regardless of whether I capture a whole screen or just a region
> >of it. If I set the "resolution" of the screen capture program
> >(Snag-It or HyperSnap) to 80 ppi, then the resulting image will be
> >the same physical size as it appeared on the screen, 100%. If I set
> >the capture "resolution" to 160 ppi, then the image will be half the
> >physical size as it appeared on the screen, BUT IT WILL HAVE EXACTLY
> >THE SAME NUMBER OF PIXELS. The resolution has not be improved, as no
> >more detail has been added.
> >
> >Upsampling and/or downsampling using any kind of pixel resampling
> >(a.k.a. interpolation), whether bicubic or otherwise, ALWAYS removes
> >detail from the image. In either case, new pixels are created that
> >are some kind of average of the original ones. They're guesses at
> >what shoud be there at that point in the image, and not real
> >information that wasn't there before. No new detail nor image
> >improvement can be added by interpolation.
> >
> >Now, however, you can re-scale an image in programs like Photoshop
> >by keeping the same number of pixels (do not interpolate) and
> >altering the size of the image in the X and Y directions equally.
> >For example, if I took the 160 ppi screenshot described in the
> >previous paragraph and re-scaled it in Photoshop without  resampling
> >the image, and if I prescribed a new size of 80 ppi, the resulting
> >image would grow back to 100% in size and have still have exactly
> >the same number of pixels as before. The resolving power of the
> >image has not changed, and no more detail has been provided. This is
> >a correct way to get an image to the size you want it in your
> >document. Another way is to import it as is and resize it in Frame
> >using the image's corner anchor points while holding the Shift key down.
> >
> >Don't mislead yourselves and others by thinking that the more
> >"resolution" in your screenshot capture application you use gives
> >you better results, and don't mislead yourselves by thinking you can
> >add more resolution by upsampling (or rescaling, for that matter) to
> >a different ppi or by adding more artificial pixels.
> >
> >Now, on another topic, there seems to be a rule of thumb that "most
> >SVGA screens are 96dpi." Someone came up with the statement that a
> >20" screen with a 1280 x 1024 display is, of course, 96 dpi. That's
> >utter nonsense. Given that screen size is measured on the diagonal,
> >and assuming the old standard 4:3 aspect ratio, a 20" screen is 16"
> >wide and 12" tall...rather like my Samsung LCDs. With 1280 pixels in
> >the X (horizontal) direction, the screen resolution is 80 dpi, not
> >96 dpi. Any way you manipulate the numbers, 96 dpi is not a result.
> >By the way, here I assumed a 4:3 aspect ratio, which is the ratio of
> >width to height. If I ran my graphics card at 1280 x 1024, circles
> >would be egg-shaped, since that resolution calls for a screen with a
> >5:4 aspect ratio. Of course, wide screens have a different aspect
> >ratio, but the principles are exactly the same.
> >
> >I have no idea what David meant by this statement:  "Again,
> >referring to my last post, monitor resolution only counts if
> >capturing an entire screen." Monitor size DOES count if you're
> >trying to calculate the resolving power of your monitor in dpi and
> >hence the maximum resolution attainable in a screenshot. It's the
> >horizontal resolution of your graphics card setting divided by the
> >width of the display area in inches or centimeters, or in the example given,
> >1280/16 = 80 dpi.
> >
> >End of rant ...
> >
> >Flame away...but be sure you know what you are talking about and
> >quit misleading others if you don't understand this.
> >
> >Dennis Brunnenmeyer
> >******************************************************************* 
> ********************
> >
> >
> >At 09:09 AM 2/5/2008, David Creamer wrote:
> > > > How can SnagIt capture an image at a higher resolution than what the
> > > > screen is set to?  A 20" screen at 1280 x 1024, for example, is 96
> > > DPI.  How do you
> > > > get 200 DPI out of that?
> > >
> > >Screen size (20") is meaningless, only the monitor resolution counts.
> > >Again, referring to my last post, monitor resolution only counts if
> > >capturing an entire screen.
> >
> >Dennis Brunnenmeyer
> >Director of Engineering
> >CEDAR RIDGE SYSTEMS
> >15019 Rattlesnake Road
> >Grass Valley, CA 95945-8710
> >Office: (530) 477-9015
> >Fax:  (530) 477-9085
> >Mobile: (530) 320-9025
> >eMail:  dennisb /at/ chronometrics /dot/ com
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >You are currently subscribed to Framers as richard.melanson at us.tel.com.
> >
> >Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com.
> >
> >To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> >framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com
> >or visit
> >http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/richard.melanso 
> n%40us.tel.com
> >
> >Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit
> >http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
>
>Dennis Brunnenmeyer
>Director of Engineering
>CEDAR RIDGE SYSTEMS
>15019 Rattlesnake Road
>Grass Valley, CA 95945-8710
>Office: (530) 477-9015
>Fax:  (530) 477-9085
>Mobile: (530) 320-9025
>eMail:  dennisb /at/ chronometrics /dot/ com
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 12
>Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:00:39 -0500
>From: Austin Meredith <Ashley_Meredith at brown.edu>
>Subject: FM8 now works for us
>To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Message-ID: <200802062000.m16K0lDG008484 at draco.services.brown.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>We are happy to be able to report that, with the recent Version
>8.0p273 patch, FM8 now works for us here at our Kouroo Contexture,
>the way it should. To see how it works fine now, enabling hypertext
>buttons between Acrobat documents on the internet, click on
>http://www.kouroo.info/kouroo/transclusions/16/80DECADE/89/1689_ShepardsConverts.pdf
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 13
>Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:10:25 -0600
>From: "Brewster, Christopher C" <christopher.c.brewster at lmco.com>
>Subject: "unavailable fonts" problem: URGENT
>To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Message-ID:
>         <EE7CAF713952AC4A970DD7CD8B4C12A019CCA018 at emss09m06.us.lmco.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>I'm trying to make a PDF version of a book. Just one file, the title
>page, causes a problem about using unavailable fonts, which makes the
>PDF operation fail. When I open the title page file, I change all the
>text to a font that's available, then save and close the file. But when
>I reopen it, I get the same message, which means the PDF operation will
>fail again. Is there a way to convince FM that the fonts are OK? Or tell
>it to use a default?
>
>
>
>This PDF is urgently needed, so I appreciate any help.
>
>Christopher C. Brewster
>Multimedia Design Engineer
>Technical Documents and Training
>Lockheed Martin MS2
>651-456-4597 Eagan office
>612-280-2233 cell
>763-475-0477 home
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 14
>Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:15:46 -0500
>From: Stuart Rogers <srogers at phoenix-geophysics.com>
>Subject: Re: page layout for a double-wide table
>To: bhechter at objectives.ca
>Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Message-ID: <47AA1572.4080202 at phoenix-geophysics.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Ben Hechter wrote:
> > Just curious, has anyone attempted a 2-page master page layout for a
> > lengthy double-wide table? Beyond a compressed landscape format, all
> > I can come up with at this point is some sort of artificial 11x17
> > page size, but am stumped further...
>
>
>If I understand correctly, you want a single table to span facing 8.5x11
>pages.  If the table is the only thing on only one pair of pages, here's
>an idea that is cumbersome to set up and maintain, but might work.
>
>Create the table on an 11x17 landscape layout in its own file.
>
>In your working file, on a left page, create an anchored frame the same
>size and position as your text frame.  Within it, create a text frame of
>the same dimensions and position.  Put the insertion point in that text
>frame and import the table file as an inset.  You now have the left half
>of your table on a left page, cropped by the anchored frame.
>
>Repeat the process on the right page.  Select the imported table on that
>page and set its Alignment in the Table Designer to Right.  (This is an
>override; just Apply, don't Update All.)  You now have the right half of
>the table on a right page, cropped by the anchored frame.
>
>Obviously, you'll have to do some playing around with a central table
>column with no borders or content, to accommodate the book's gutter.
>Also, the autonumbering, if it exists, will increment on the right page.
>   You might have to fake the table numbering for your TOC by putting a
>titled empty table above the real one, and autonumber the real one with
>its own series label that is not used elsewhere, so as not to disrupt
>the numbering of other tables in the book.
>
>Caveat: This suggestion is not called "lubrican".  ;-)
>
>--
>Stuart Rogers
>Technical Communicator
>Phoenix Geophysics Limited
>Toronto, ON, Canada
>+1 (416) 491-7340 x 325
>
>srogers phoenix-geophysics com
>
>If it makes things work more easily, why isn't it called lubrican?
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 15
>Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:18:18 -0500
>From: "Bill Swallow" <techcommdood at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: "unavailable fonts" problem: URGENT
>To: "Brewster, Christopher C" <christopher.c.brewster at lmco.com>
>Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Message-ID:
>         <375e3cb30802061218y2910545o24819069f3bb5040 at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>1. File > Preferences > General
>2. Deselect "remember missing font names"
>3. Open the file.
>4. Click OK to font substitutions.
>5. Save and close the file.
>
>
>On Feb 6, 2008 3:10 PM, Brewster, Christopher C
><christopher.c.brewster at lmco.com> wrote:
> > I'm trying to make a PDF version of a book. Just one file, the title
> > page, causes a problem about using unavailable fonts, which makes the
> > PDF operation fail. When I open the title page file, I change all the
> > text to a font that's available, then save and close the file. But when
> > I reopen it, I get the same message, which means the PDF operation will
> > fail again. Is there a way to convince FM that the fonts are OK? Or tell
> > it to use a default?
> >
> >
> >
> > This PDF is urgently needed, so I appreciate any help.
> >
> > Christopher C. Brewster
> > Multimedia Design Engineer
> > Technical Documents and Training
> > Lockheed Martin MS2
> > 651-456-4597 Eagan office
> > 612-280-2233 cell
> > 763-475-0477 home
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> > You are currently subscribed to Framers as techcommdood at gmail.com.
> >
> > Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com.
> >
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com
> > or visit 
> http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/techcommdood%40gmail.com
> >
> > Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit
> > http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
> >
>
>
>
>--
>Bill Swallow
>HATT List Owner
>WWP-Users List Owner
>Senior Member STC, TechValley Chapter
>STC Single-Sourcing SIG Manager
>http://techcommdood.blogspot.com
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 16
>Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:46:24 -0800
>From: "maxwell.hoffmann" <maxwell.hoffmann at welocalize.com>
>Subject: Question about applying and removing character tags in FM6.0
>To: <framers at lists.frameusers.com>
>Message-ID:
> 
><B15BF0198485DE4585B0B839A6CB4233028DE72C at deschutes.portland.welocalize.com>
>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="US-ASCII"
>
>I have a basic, really dumb question about character tags.  (Think I
>know the answer, but need to check.)
>
>
>
>If I apply a character tag for [Change Bars] to several paragraphs, (and
>the char tag is defined all "as is" settings, except for change bar), is
>there anyway to remove the character tag and not wipe out format
>overrides (e.g  [bold] and [emphasis]) character tags on the sentence
>level?
>
>
>
>This is in unstructured FrameMaker, V6.0. I know that the traditional
>way to get rid of a character tag is F8 or [Default Para Tag]. I am
>checking to see if there is some way to remove just one tag and not
>interfere with other format overrides. (I think the answer is there is
>no way.)
>
>
>
>Maxwell Hoffmann
>Production Lead
>Welocalize
>
>Tel. 503.274.2211
>Mob. 301.693.7728
>Fax: 503.274.2611
>www.welocalize.com <http://www.welocalize.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 17
>Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:51:50 -0800
>From: "Owen, Clint" <Clint.Owen at craneaerospace.com>
>Subject: RE: Question about applying and removing character tags in
>         FM6.0
>To: <framers at lists.frameusers.com>
>Message-ID:
> 
><CE6D1945BC24ED4B923A20CB128F45D80674B698 at lyncourier.aerospace.craneae.com>
>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
>Maxwell,
>
>Just select all the paragraphs that contain the change bar attribute,
>then go to the character designer (ctrl D), uncheck the change bar
>attribute, then click "Apply". This will remove the change bar and leave
>everything else.
>
>We always apply and remove change bars manually; it's easier to control
>than the automatic method.
>
>
>Clint Owen
>Technical Publications
>Crane Aerospace & Electronics
>425-743-8674
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com
>[mailto:framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of
>maxwell.hoffmann
>Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:46 PM
>To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Subject: Question about applying and removing character tags in FM6.0
>
>I have a basic, really dumb question about character tags.  (Think I
>know the answer, but need to check.)
>
>
>
>If I apply a character tag for [Change Bars] to several paragraphs, (and
>the char tag is defined all "as is" settings, except for change bar), is
>there anyway to remove the character tag and not wipe out format
>overrides (e.g  [bold] and [emphasis]) character tags on the sentence
>level?
>
>
>
>This is in unstructured FrameMaker, V6.0. I know that the traditional
>way to get rid of a character tag is F8 or [Default Para Tag]. I am
>checking to see if there is some way to remove just one tag and not
>interfere with other format overrides. (I think the answer is there is
>no way.)
>
>
>
>Maxwell Hoffmann
>Production Lead
>Welocalize
>
>Tel. 503.274.2211
>Mob. 301.693.7728
>Fax: 503.274.2611
>www.welocalize.com <http://www.welocalize.com/>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>You are currently subscribed to Framers as
>Clint.Owen at craneaerospace.com.
>
>Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com.
>
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com
>or visit
>http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/clint.owen%40craneae
>rospace.com
>
>Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit
>http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
>We value your opinion!  How may we serve you better?
>Please click the below survey link to tell us how we are doing.
>
>http://www.craneae.com/surveys/satisfaction.htm
>
>Your feedback is of the utmost importance to us! Thank you for your time!
>
>
>######################################################################
>Attention:
>The information contained in this email message may be privileged 
>and is confidential information intended only for the use of the 
>recipient, or any employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the 
>intended recipient. Any unauthorized use, distribution or copying of 
>this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
>
>If you have received this communication in error, please notify the 
>sender immediately and destroy the original message and all 
>attachments from your electronic files.
>
>
>This email was scanned and cleared by MailMarshal.
>######################################################################
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 18
>Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:00:23 -0500
>From: "Shuttleworth, Roger" <Roger_Shuttleworth at tvworks.com>
>Subject: Distiller 7 missing fonts
>To: <framers at lists.frameusers.com>
>Message-ID:
>         <03C8E1672F290B44B20D46DB98ED36220AE85789 at tvpmail.ad.liberate.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
>Hello All
>
>
>
>(sigh) I know this question must have been asked dozens of times.
>
>
>
>Using FrameMaker 7.1 p116 and Acrobat Professional (Distiller) 
>7.0.7. Windows XP SP2.
>
>
>
>I try to create a PDF from FrameMaker using File > Save as PDF. 
>Distiller fires up but fails to produce a PDF (because of my settings) with the
>following message:
>
>
>
>%%[ ProductName: Distiller ]%%
>
>%%[ Error: GillSans not found. Font cannot be embedded. ]%%
>
>%%[ Error: invalidfont; OffendingCommand: findfont ]%%
>
>
>
>The GillSans it refers to is installed on my system using ATM Lite. 
>It's a Type 1 PostScript produced by Adobe, file name GN___.pfm and .pfb. There
>are a number of related fonts - the italic, bold, etc.
>
>
>
>In Distiller the font locations are set to:
>
>
>
>C:\PSFONTS\PFM\
>
>C:\Windows\Fonts\
>
>C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Acrobat 7.0\Resource\Font\
>
>
>
>And a couple of other places.
>
>
>
>In Distiller's Adobe PDF Settings the Embed all fonts option is 
>checked, as is Subset embedded fonts when percent...is less than 
>100%. And "When
>embedding fails" is set to Cancel job.
>
>
>
>I removed and reinstalled the fonts from the original disk using 
>ATM, but the message still appears. In FrameMaker the paragraph 
>formats using these
>fonts are OK - i.e. the font is not greyed in the paragraph designer.
>
>
>
>Any ideas?
>
>
>
>
>
>Roger Shuttleworth
>
>Technical Publications
>
>TVWorks Canada, Inc.
>
>150 Dufferin Avenue
>
>London, Ontario
>
>N6A 5N6
>
>Canada
>
>Tel. 519 963-4368
>
>www.tvworks.com
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 19
>Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:10:39 -0800
>From: "Owen, Clint" <Clint.Owen at craneaerospace.com>
>Subject: RE: Distiller 7 missing fonts
>To: <framers at lists.frameusers.com>
>Message-ID:
> 
><CE6D1945BC24ED4B923A20CB128F45D80674B69A at lyncourier.aerospace.craneae.com>
>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
>Some fonts are restricted from being embedded by the font foundry. It is
>an attribute of the font files. This prevents them from being extracted
>from the PDF by a third party and reused.
>
>
>Clint Owen
>Technical Publications
>Crane Aerospace & Electronics
>425-743-8674
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com
>[mailto:framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Shuttleworth,
>Roger
>Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:00 PM
>To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Subject: Distiller 7 missing fonts
>
>Hello All
>
>
>
>(sigh) I know this question must have been asked dozens of times.
>
>
>
>Using FrameMaker 7.1 p116 and Acrobat Professional (Distiller) 7.0.7.
>Windows XP SP2.
>
>
>
>I try to create a PDF from FrameMaker using File > Save as PDF.
>Distiller fires up but fails to produce a PDF (because of my settings)
>with the following message:
>
>
>
>%%[ ProductName: Distiller ]%%
>
>%%[ Error: GillSans not found. Font cannot be embedded. ]%%
>
>%%[ Error: invalidfont; OffendingCommand: findfont ]%%
>
>
>
>The GillSans it refers to is installed on my system using ATM Lite. It's
>a Type 1 PostScript produced by Adobe, file name GN___.pfm and .pfb.
>There are a number of related fonts - the italic, bold, etc.
>
>
>
>In Distiller the font locations are set to:
>
>
>
>C:\PSFONTS\PFM\
>
>C:\Windows\Fonts\
>
>C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Acrobat 7.0\Resource\Font\
>
>
>
>And a couple of other places.
>
>
>
>In Distiller's Adobe PDF Settings the Embed all fonts option is checked,
>as is Subset embedded fonts when percent...is less than 100%. And "When
>embedding fails" is set to Cancel job.
>
>
>
>I removed and reinstalled the fonts from the original disk using ATM,
>but the message still appears. In FrameMaker the paragraph formats using
>these fonts are OK - i.e. the font is not greyed in the paragraph
>designer.
>
>
>
>Any ideas?
>
>
>
>
>
>Roger Shuttleworth
>
>Technical Publications
>
>TVWorks Canada, Inc.
>
>150 Dufferin Avenue
>
>London, Ontario
>
>N6A 5N6
>
>Canada
>
>Tel. 519 963-4368
>
>www.tvworks.com
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>You are currently subscribed to Framers as
>Clint.Owen at craneaerospace.com.
>
>Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com.
>
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com
>or visit
>http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/clint.owen%40craneae
>rospace.com
>
>Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit
>http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
>We value your opinion!  How may we serve you better?
>Please click the below survey link to tell us how we are doing.
>
>http://www.craneae.com/surveys/satisfaction.htm
>
>Your feedback is of the utmost importance to us! Thank you for your time!
>
>
>######################################################################
>Attention:
>The information contained in this email message may be privileged 
>and is confidential information intended only for the use of the 
>recipient, or any employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the 
>intended recipient. Any unauthorized use, distribution or copying of 
>this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
>
>If you have received this communication in error, please notify the 
>sender immediately and destroy the original message and all 
>attachments from your electronic files.
>
>
>This email was scanned and cleared by MailMarshal.
>######################################################################
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 20
>Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:11:59 -0500
>From: Stuart Rogers <srogers at phoenix-geophysics.com>
>Subject: Re: Working with Images
>To: John Sgammato <jsgammato at IMPRIVATA.com>
>Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Message-ID: <47AA229F.1080603 at phoenix-geophysics.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>John Sgammato wrote:
> > When you capture a 96dpi image at higher resolution, you will never
> > see detail that isn't there (of course) but you can do more with the
> > image because your OWN image of the image is capable of showing
> > greater resolution. You can look at it as if your high-res image
> > capture dices the existing image into smaller pieces. As an extreme
> > example, consider an original image of alternating 1-inch black and
> > white elements along a line at 10 dpi. Capture that image at 100 dpi
> > and you really have 10 times as many 0.1-inch elements to work with,
> > all faithful in location, dimension, and color to the original. If
> > you need to rotate or stretch or manipulate the image in any way, or
> > if any of your processes cause the image to lose resolution, the new
> > hi-res image will be more forgiving. Likewise if you print the image,
> > the printer is limited by its own resolution - the higher-resolution
> > image can help to compensate.
> >
> > This is easy to test for your self: in Illustrator (or similar)
> > generate a black square and inside it a white circle or diamond.
> > Repeat at smaller intervals until you get bored. Save as .ai, then
> > export to .tiff twice. For the first select 96dpi and call it
> > lo-res.tiff, and for the second export at 400dpi and call it
> > hi-res.tiff. Then import them side-by side into FM and see how they
> > look. The lo-res image will show jaggy edges that you don't see in
> > the hi-res.
>
>Hi John,
>
>Sorry, but that's not how it works!
>
>All that happens in a screen capture is that the capturing software
>copies the contents of all or part of the graphics card RAM to a file.
>"Resolution" is irrelevant at that stage, because you are only copying a
>fixed number of pixels.  Those pixels are displayed by your monitor
>according to the graphics card resolution setting, which determines the
>image dimensions *on your particular screen*, and they are (later) sent
>to a printer driver with an instruction on how closely to space the
>corresponding ink dots.  But none of that changes the number of pixels
>in either the graphics card RAM or the resulting file.
>
>Also, your test doesn't apply to screen captures.
>Illustrator is a vector program, not a raster program.  When you
>export the vector drawings to tiff, they get rasterized (converted from
>mathematical formulas with no associated quantity of pixels to files
>containing a finite number of pixels).  If you export at low resolution,
>then Illustrator will create a file with fewer pixels than if you export
>at higher resolution.  This export operation is completely different
>from a screen capture, which is a raster image with a fixed number of
>pixels.
>
>"Jaggies" are unavoidable when rectangular pixels are used to create
>angled lines.  They're just less visible with higher-res files, though
>they are still there.
>
>HTH!
>
>--
>Stuart Rogers
>Technical Communicator
>Phoenix Geophysics Limited
>Toronto, ON, Canada
>+1 (416) 491-7340 x 325
>
>srogers phoenix-geophysics com
>
>If it makes things work more easily, why isn't it called lubrican?
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 21
>Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:20:18 +1300 (NZDT)
>From: "Alan Litchfield" <alan at alphabyte.co.nz>
>Subject: RE: Distiller 7 missing fonts
>To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Message-ID:
>         <40968.156.62.3.23.1202332818.squirrel at webmail.ak.planet.gen.nz>
>Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
>Roger,
>
>Have you tried printing to pdf, using the Adobe PDF driver? I would suggest
>printing to a postscript file and manually Distilling it so you can see what
>is going on at stage.
>
>Also,...
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com
> > [mailto:framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Shuttleworth,
> > Roger
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:00 PM
> > To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> > Subject: Distiller 7 missing fonts
> >
> >
> > Using FrameMaker 7.1 p116 and Acrobat Professional (Distiller) 7.0.7.
> > Windows XP SP2.
> >
> >
> >
> > I try to create a PDF from FrameMaker using File > Save as PDF.
> > Distiller fires up but fails to produce a PDF (because of my settings)
> > with the following message:
> >
> >
> >
> > %%[ ProductName: Distiller ]%%
> >
> > %%[ Error: GillSans not found. Font cannot be embedded. ]%%
> >
> > %%[ Error: invalidfont; OffendingCommand: findfont ]%%
> >
> >
> >
> > The GillSans it refers to is installed on my system using ATM Lite. It's
> > a Type 1 PostScript produced by Adobe, file name GN___.pfm and .pfb.
> > There are a number of related fonts - the italic, bold, etc.
>
>I am not really up on Windows stuff but I thought you didn't have to use ATM
>to install fonts anymore, least ways I haven't since NT. The Fonts Control
>Panel provides an very nice interface for managing your fonts. It may be that
>ATM is putting the postscript files into a directory that Distiller is unaware
>of.
>
>
> > In Distiller the font locations are set to:
> >
> >
> > C:\PSFONTS\PFM\
> >
> > C:\Windows\Fonts\
> >
> > C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Acrobat 7.0\Resource\Font\
> >
>
>Well they look fairly standard :/
>
> > And a couple of other places.
> >
>
>More than likely.
>
> >
> >
> > In Distiller's Adobe PDF Settings the Embed all fonts option is checked,
> > as is Subset embedded fonts when percent...is less than 100%. And "When
> > embedding fails" is set to Cancel job.
> >
>
>Have you Tried setting it to replace with another font? To confirm the file
>will print without it?
>
> > I removed and reinstalled the fonts from the original disk using ATM,
> > but the message still appears. In FrameMaker the paragraph formats using
> > these fonts are OK - i.e. the font is not greyed in the paragraph
> > designer.
> >
>
>Note the comment above.
>
>Cheers
>Alan
>
>--
>Alan Litchfield MBus (Hons), MNZCS
>AlphaByte
>PO Box 1941, Auckland
>http://www.alphabyte.co.nz
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 22
>Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:22:08 +1300
>From: "rebecca officer" <rebecca.officer at alliedtelesis.co.nz>
>Subject: RE: Distiller 7 missing fonts
>To: <framers at lists.frameusers.com>
>Message-ID: <47AADBCF.B833.0038.0 at alliedtelesis.co.nz>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>Hi Roger
>
>I've got no idea what could be wrong with your font, but just 
>thought I'd comment that we use that font and have no problems with 
>embedding it.
>
>Our font files are dated 14/10/1999. Using FM7.0 and Win XP SP2.
>
>Did it work in the past for you, or is this the first time you've 
>tried to use GillSans?
>
>Cheers, Rebecca
>
> >>> "Owen, Clint" <Clint.Owen at craneaerospace.com> 7/02/08 10:10 >>>
>Some fonts are restricted from being embedded by the font foundry. It is
>an attribute of the font files. This prevents them from being extracted
>from the PDF by a third party and reused.
>
>
>Clint Owen
>Technical Publications
>Crane Aerospace & Electronics
>425-743-8674
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com
>[mailto:framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Shuttleworth,
>Roger
>Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:00 PM
>To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Subject: Distiller 7 missing fonts
>
>Hello All
>
>
>
>(sigh) I know this question must have been asked dozens of times.
>
>
>
>Using FrameMaker 7.1 p116 and Acrobat Professional (Distiller) 7.0.7.
>Windows XP SP2.
>
>
>
>I try to create a PDF from FrameMaker using File > Save as PDF.
>Distiller fires up but fails to produce a PDF (because of my settings)
>with the following message:
>
>
>
>%%[ ProductName: Distiller ]%%
>
>%%[ Error: GillSans not found. Font cannot be embedded. ]%%
>
>%%[ Error: invalidfont; OffendingCommand: findfont ]%%
>
>
>
>The GillSans it refers to is installed on my system using ATM Lite. It's
>a Type 1 PostScript produced by Adobe, file name GN___.pfm and .pfb.
>There are a number of related fonts - the italic, bold, etc.
>
>
>
>In Distiller the font locations are set to:
>
>
>
>C:\PSFONTS\PFM\
>
>C:\Windows\Fonts\
>
>C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Acrobat 7.0\Resource\Font\
>
>
>
>And a couple of other places.
>
>
>
>In Distiller's Adobe PDF Settings the Embed all fonts option is checked,
>as is Subset embedded fonts when percent...is less than 100%. And "When
>embedding fails" is set to Cancel job.
>
>
>
>I removed and reinstalled the fonts from the original disk using ATM,
>but the message still appears. In FrameMaker the paragraph formats using
>these fonts are OK - i.e. the font is not greyed in the paragraph
>designer.
>
>
>
>Any ideas?
>
>
>
>
>
>Roger Shuttleworth
>
>Technical Publications
>
>TVWorks Canada, Inc.
>
>150 Dufferin Avenue
>
>London, Ontario
>
>N6A 5N6
>
>Canada
>
>Tel. 519 963-4368
>
>www.tvworks.com
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>NOTICE: This message contains privileged and confidential
>information intended only for the use of the addressee
>named above. If you are not the intended recipient of
>this message you are hereby notified that you must not
>disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it.
>If you have received this message in error please
>notify Allied Telesis Labs Ltd immediately.
>Any views expressed in this message are those of the
>individual sender, except where the sender has the
>authority to issue and specifically states them to
>be the views of Allied Telesis Labs.
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 23
>Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:46:20 -0600
>From: "Mike Wickham" <mewickham at compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Distiller 7 missing fonts
>To: "Frame Users" <framers at lists.FrameUsers.com>
>Message-ID: <008801c86909$b66c9290$0b00a8c0 at plecopress>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>         reply-type=original
>
> > Some fonts are restricted from being embedded by the font foundry. It is
> > an attribute of the font files. This prevents them from being extracted
> > from the PDF by a third party and reused.
>
>Except that Adobe fonts all permit embedding, and he said he had an Adobe
>font. (Maybe it was different with really old versions of the font?)
>
>Mike Wickham
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 24
>Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:30:13 -0600
>From: "Peter Gold" <peter at knowhowpro.com>
>Subject: Re: Question about applying and removing character tags in
>         FM6.0
>To: maxwell.hoffmann <maxwell.hoffmann at welocalize.com>,         "Clint Owen"
>         <Clint.Owen at craneaerospace.com>
>Cc: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Message-ID:
>         <905e72990802061430k4173915ahe058d762757061fc at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>Hi, Maxwell:
>
>I'd suggest a slight variation on Clint's suggestion:
>
>Select the affected range of text, open the character designer, click
>the Commands button, choose Set Window To As-Is, THEN disable Change
>Bars and click apply. The Designers pick up text attributes from the
>selection; setting all to as-is first, is a precaution to retain all
>local formatting - applied with or without tags - in the selection.
>Regards,
>
>Peter
>_______________________________
>Peter Gold
>KnowHow ProServices
>
>On Feb 6, 2008 2:46 PM, maxwell.hoffmann
><maxwell.hoffmann at welocalize.com> wrote:
> > I have a basic, really dumb question about character tags.  (Think I
> > know the answer, but need to check.)
> >
> >
> >
> > If I apply a character tag for [Change Bars] to several paragraphs, (and
> > the char tag is defined all "as is" settings, except for change bar), is
> > there anyway to remove the character tag and not wipe out format
> > overrides (e.g  [bold] and [emphasis]) character tags on the sentence
> > level?
> >
> >
> >
> > This is in unstructured FrameMaker, V6.0. I know that the traditional
> > way to get rid of a character tag is F8 or [Default Para Tag]. I am
> > checking to see if there is some way to remove just one tag and not
> > interfere with other format overrides. (I think the answer is there is
> > no way.)
> >
> >
> >
> > Maxwell Hoffmann
> > Production Lead
> > Welocalize
> >
> > Tel. 503.274.2211
> > Mob. 301.693.7728
> > Fax: 503.274.2611
> > www.welocalize.com <http://www.welocalize.com/>
> >
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 25
>Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 17:03:45 -0700
>From: Graeme R Forbes <Graeme.Forbes at Colorado.EDU>
>Subject: re: keep with next para (solved)
>To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Message-ID: <p06230904c3cffa4b4eca@[128.138.229.197]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
>
>I knew there had to be a simple solution. You prevent a page break
>occurring at a soft return by putting a sufficiently large number (I
>used 4) in the Widow/Orphan control box on the Pagination page of the
>Para Designer. Thanks to Stuart Rogers for suggesting this.
>
>Graeme Forbes
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 26
>Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 08:56:55 +0100
>From: Jacob Sch?ffer <js at grafikhuset.dk>
>Subject: RE: Distiller 7 missing fonts
>To: <framers at lists.frameusers.com>
>Message-ID:
>         <0995344996F7B34B96671B170714C47A06AA35 at GHSBS01.grafikhuset.local>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Roger,
>
>This error occur when the Distiller setting "When embedding fails" 
>is set to "Cancel job" *and* Distiller cannot find the .PFB file.
>
>Your Distiller Font locations points to C:\PSFONTS\PFM. 
>Traditionally Adobe Type Manager is NOT storing .PFB files in this 
>folder, but rather in the C:\PSFONTS folder. Hence, check the 
>specific location for the .PFB file and add that folder to your 
>Distiller font locations.
>
>BTW, I'm quite certain that native Type 1 fonts do not have the 
>permission flag at all -- this is an OpenType/TrueType thing. 
>However, some conversion processes may add a permission flag 
>on-the-go to the resulting fonts embedded in the final PDF document.
>
>Best regards
>Jacob Sch?ffer
>Grafikhuset (House of Graphics)
>Paradis All? 22, Raml?se
>DK-3200 Helsinge, Denmark
>Phone: +45 4439 4400
>Email: js at grafikhuset.dk
>Web: www.grafikhuset.net
>
>
>
> > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> > Fra: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com
> > [mailto:framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com] P? vegne af
> > Shuttleworth, Roger
> > Sendt: 6. februar 2008 22:00
> > Til: framers at lists.frameusers.com
> > Emne: Distiller 7 missing fonts
> >
> >
> > Hello All
> >
> >
> >
> > (sigh) I know this question must have been asked dozens of times.
> >
> >
> >
> > Using FrameMaker 7.1 p116 and Acrobat Professional
> > (Distiller) 7.0.7. Windows XP SP2.
> >
> >
> >
> > I try to create a PDF from FrameMaker using File > Save as
> > PDF. Distiller fires up but fails to produce a PDF (because
> > of my settings) with the following message:
> >
> >
> >
> > %%[ ProductName: Distiller ]%%
> >
> > %%[ Error: GillSans not found. Font cannot be embedded. ]%%
> >
> > %%[ Error: invalidfont; OffendingCommand: findfont ]%%
> >
> >
> >
> > The GillSans it refers to is installed on my system using ATM
> > Lite. It's a Type 1 PostScript produced by Adobe, file name
> > GN___.pfm and .pfb. There are a number of related fonts - the
> > italic, bold, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > In Distiller the font locations are set to:
> >
> >
> >
> > C:\PSFONTS\PFM\
> >
> > C:\Windows\Fonts\
> >
> > C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Acrobat 7.0\Resource\Font\
> >
> >
> >
> > And a couple of other places.
> >
> >
> >
> > In Distiller's Adobe PDF Settings the Embed all fonts option
> > is checked, as is Subset embedded fonts when percent...is
> > less than 100%. And "When embedding fails" is set to Cancel job.
> >
> >
> >
> > I removed and reinstalled the fonts from the original disk
> > using ATM, but the message still appears. In FrameMaker the
> > paragraph formats using these fonts are OK - i.e. the font is
> > not greyed in the paragraph designer.
> >
> >
> >
> > Any ideas?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Roger Shuttleworth
> >
> > Technical Publications
> >
> > TVWorks Canada, Inc.
> >
> > 150 Dufferin Avenue
> >
> > London, Ontario
> >
> > N6A 5N6
> >
> > Canada
> >
> > Tel. 519 963-4368
> >
> > www.tvworks.com
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> > You are currently subscribed to Framers as js at grafikhuset.dk.
> >
> > Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com.
> >
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com
> > or visit
> > http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/js%40grafi
>khuset.dk
>
>Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit 
>http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>You are currently subscribed to
>Framers.
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/listinfo/framers
>Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit
>http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
>
>End of Framers Digest, Vol 28, Issue 7
>**************************************

Reply via email to