The PDF list is a service provided by PDFzone.com | http://www.pdfzone.com __________________________________________________________________
I never have understood Adobe's logic re: font embedding choices. If one has to have the font installed on their system for editing, why would one want to include the entire font in the PDF? Also, both Dov and Leonard have made it crystal clear that all fonts should be embedded in a PDF, including Arial and Times New Roman. Particularly with the Press job options, why is there even a choice? Shouldn't it just be embed and subset and be done with it? Rich -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kenton Smith Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PDF] embedding v/s not embedding font The PDF list is a service provided by PDFzone.com | http://www.pdfzone.com __________________________________________________________________ I have had fonts on my system that were subset in a PDF and when I went to edit the file I could not. When the fonts were not subset and on my system I could edit text. So my experience is that I have to have the fonts embedded in the PDF file to edit it. I don't know about embedded fonts that are not on my system, I have never tried. -- Kenton Smith Production Director/Designer Scrapbook Retailer Magazine [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 3/31/04 10:59 AM, "Dov Isaacs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The PDF list is a service provided by PDFzone.com | http://www.pdfzone.com > __________________________________________________________________ > > Quite frankly, it buys you absolutely nothing to fully embed a > font in terms of "editability" of a PDF file. > > When you use Acrobat's Text Touch-Up Tool or the text edit > features within Enfocus PitStop, it is irrelevant as to whether > the font is subset or not. Both of these tools require that the > font be installed on your system anyway and gets any "missing" > glyphs from that copy. > > The downside of not subset embedding is that you can get > dramatic file bloat due to all those un-referenced glyph > definitions in your PDF file. > > - Dov > > > > At 3/31/2004 09:49 AM, Rich Sprague wrote: > >> Not really. >> >> Rich >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Kenton Smith >> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 9:42 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: [PDF] embedding v/s not embedding font >> >> I always turn subset off, just in case I need to edit something. Is there a >> reason, besides file size, that I should have the fonts subset? >> -- >> Kenton Smith >> Production Director/Designer >> Scrapbook Retailer Magazine >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> On 3/31/04 10:14 AM, "Dov Isaacs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> At 3/31/2004 02:50 AM, MN wrote: >>> >>>> what could be the scenarios under which we should embed or not embed the >>>> fonts >>>> in a pdf. if any one can list out advantage/ disadvantages for this >>>> or any link on such resource will be very useful. >>>> >>>> thanks... >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> MN >>> >>> >>> In the general case, you should always embed fonts (subsetted). >>> When you DON'T embed the fonts and the PDF file is displayed >>> and/or printed by someone who does NOT have those fonts installed >>> on their computer system, at BEST the quality and style of the >>> type does not match those of the original document. At WORST, >>> certain characters may be improperly displayed or printed or not >>> displayed or printed at all. PDF files without embedded fonts >>> are a real crapshoot! >>> >>> - Dov > > > To change your subscription: > http://www.pdfzone.com/discussions/lists-pdf.html > To change your subscription: http://www.pdfzone.com/discussions/lists-pdf.html To change your subscription: http://www.pdfzone.com/discussions/lists-pdf.html
