Is there a way to set the default to embed truetype fonts when saving 
documents?  I expected that setting the option in the options tab to have 
saved the option in the normal.dot and apply to all docuemnts based on 
normal.dot, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Most users would be ill advised to make this the default, as it dramatically
increases file size and in most cases is not necessary.

-- 
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"John Smith"  wrote in message
news:SQjQf.42$Ay5.916@news.uswest.net...
> Is there a way to set the default to embed truetype fonts when saving
> documents?  I expected that setting the option in the options tab to have
> saved the option in the normal.dot and apply to all docuemnts based on
> normal.dot, but this doesn't seem to be the case.
>
>

Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote:

> Most users would be ill advised to make this the default, as it dramatically
> increases file size and in most cases is not necessary.

That may be true, but the OP asked if was possible to make it the 
default.

Unfortunately, there's no way to specify "Use the embedded font EVEN 
IF the font is already installed on the recipient's system". With 
today's plethora of different versions of the same font, such an 
option becomes more and more necessary if formatting (re-flow, 
pagination, etc.) is critical and needs to be preserved.  There are 
operating system restrictions that would have to be overcome to make 
such an option feasible.

You CAN make embedding the default in Adobe Acrobat; and you can 
specify that common system fonts (Arial, TNR, etc.) NOT be embedded.

  - Character

In Word 2003 (I don't know about earlier versions) there is a "Do not embed
common system fonts" option.

-- 
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"Character"  wrote in message
news:NPnQf.44202$632.32553@fe05.news.easynews.com...
> Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote:
>
> > Most users would be ill advised to make this the default, as it
dramatically
> > increases file size and in most cases is not necessary.
>
> That may be true, but the OP asked if was possible to make it the
> default.
>
> Unfortunately, there's no way to specify "Use the embedded font EVEN
> IF the font is already installed on the recipient's system". With
> today's plethora of different versions of the same font, such an
> option becomes more and more necessary if formatting (re-flow,
> pagination, etc.) is critical and needs to be preserved.  There are
> operating system restrictions that would have to be overcome to make
> such an option feasible.
>
> You CAN make embedding the default in Adobe Acrobat; and you can
> specify that common system fonts (Arial, TNR, etc.) NOT be embedded.
>
>   - Character
>

As a PS:

Given the current legal situation, it would not be responsible for an 
operating system manufacturer to provide an option that would embed all 
fonts. And Word's option to embed fonts does not do that.

As a matter of Copyright law, it is the copyright owner who has the right 
to determine the distribution of intellectual property including font 
files. Also, some font files are protected by other legal devices such as 
design patents and trademark protection.

In the system utilised in Word, a flag internal to the font file is read 
by the OS and the level of embedding permission is established from that. 
Even with the present system in Word, ultimately it is the responsibility 
of the user to assure that the copyright owner has given permission for 
embedding.

So, you can set options to cause embedding in Word but might discover 
that not all fonts were.

I am not familiar with Acrobat's workings.

Tom
MSMVP
Windows Shell/User

Thomas Ferguson wrote:

> As a PS:
> 
> Given the current legal situation, it would not be responsible for an 
> operating system manufacturer to provide an option that would embed all 
> fonts. And Word's option to embed fonts does not do that.
> 
> As a matter of Copyright law, it is the copyright owner who has the right 
> to determine the distribution of intellectual property including font 
> files. Also, some font files are protected by other legal devices such as 
> design patents and trademark protection.
> 
> In the system utilised in Word, a flag internal to the font file is read 
> by the OS and the level of embedding permission is established from that. 
> Even with the present system in Word, ultimately it is the responsibility 
> of the user to assure that the copyright owner has given permission for 
> embedding.
> 
> So, you can set options to cause embedding in Word but might discover 
> that not all fonts were.
> 
> I am not familiar with Acrobat's workings.
> 
> Tom
> MSMVP
> Windows Shell/User 
> 

Yes - in my mini-rant I neglected to mention that the embedding flag 
would have to be respected. But I've never been able to figure out 
just how "No Embedding" protects the copyright any more than "Print 
and Preview only". It's the equivalent of a book's copyright not 
allowing anyone but the printer to read it.

With "no embedding", the document does not contain the actual font data 
but just the character codes and the data needed to tell the target 
system what font is specified. If that font is not on the target system, 
font substitution rules are applied by the operating system. It can get 
quite complex. Sometimes the results are not satisfactory.

With "print and Preview", the font information is included so that the 
font is temporarily installed on the target system if not already 
installed. Editing is estopped; no changes can be made in the section(s) 
of the document that are formatted with that font unless the font was 
already installed on the target system.

It's all quite messy in my view.

I'm sure you knew all that. I just included it for reference purposes.

So, the different levels of embedding permission do behave differently. 
And, I believe Microsoft made some changes in Office 2003's 
implementation and use of the system.

All that not withstanding, there is much about it that mystifies me as 
well. Nonetheless, it does help put/keep control of distribution rights 
in those hands in which it belongs by law.

Tom
MSMVP
Windows Shell/User


"Character"  wrote in message 
news:fNtQf.71229$Fj7.11714@fe09.news.easynews.com...
| Thomas Ferguson wrote:
|
| > As a PS:
| >
| > Given the current legal situation, it would not be responsible for an
| > operating system manufacturer to provide an option that would embed 
all
| > fonts. And Word's option to embed fonts does not do that.
| >
| > As a matter of Copyright law, it is the copyright owner who has the 
right
| > to determine the distribution of intellectual property including font
| > files. Also, some font files are protected by other legal devices 
such as
| > design patents and trademark protection.
| >
| > In the system utilised in Word, a flag internal to the font file is 
read
| > by the OS and the level of embedding permission is established from 
that.
| > Even with the present system in Word, ultimately it is the 
responsibility
| > of the user to assure that the copyright owner has given permission 
for
| > embedding.
| >
| > So, you can set options to cause embedding in Word but might discover
| > that not all fonts were.
| >
| > I am not familiar with Acrobat's workings.
| >
| > Tom
| > MSMVP
| > Windows Shell/User
| >
|
| Yes - in my mini-rant I neglected to mention that the embedding flag
| would have to be respected. But I've never been able to figure out
| just how "No Embedding" protects the copyright any more than "Print
| and Preview only". It's the equivalent of a book's copyright not
| allowing anyone but the printer to read it.

So to summarize this thread:

Suzanne, assuming she knows that embedding true type fonts in a word 
document is necessary or not for the intended purpose, piously declares it 
unwise to do so.

Thomas, without knowing the licensing terms related to the use of the font, 
gives a half-baked lecture on intellectual property law.

Character at least notes that the posts are unresponsive to the original 
question.

Do any of you MVPs remember that embedding true type fonts was once the 
standard in earlier versions of word?

Do any of you remember buying font packages from third party vendors to fit 
specific needs?

Does anyone know the answer to the original question, or is this an MVP ego 
trip?


"Character"  wrote in message 
news:NPnQf.44202$632.32553@fe05.news.easynews.com...
> Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote:
>
>> Most users would be ill advised to make this the default, as it 
>> dramatically
>> increases file size and in most cases is not necessary.
>
> That may be true, but the OP asked if was possible to make it the default.
>
> Unfortunately, there's no way to specify "Use the embedded font EVEN IF 
> the font is already installed on the recipient's system". With today's 
> plethora of different versions of the same font, such an option becomes 
> more and more necessary if formatting (re-flow, pagination, etc.) is 
> critical and needs to be preserved.  There are operating system 
> restrictions that would have to be overcome to make such an option 
> feasible.
>
> You CAN make embedding the default in Adobe Acrobat; and you can specify 
> that common system fonts (Arial, TNR, etc.) NOT be embedded.
>
>  - Character
>

Very amusing.

Tom
MSMVP
Windows Shell/User

Hi;
It took a while to find the time to check this out. However, I located 
some information but have not had the time to try it.

Load normal.dot, change the embedding options to those you want and save 
the template. Now, each document based on the template will inherit the 
setting.

If you have modified Normal.dot, you might want to save a copy somewhere 
before making this change.

Also, you might consider modifying a renamed copy of Normal dot instead 
and using that when you want fonts embedded. Remember that all documents 
that use Normal.dot will be affected if you make that change in it. Of 
course, ignore that idea if you see fit.

Also, it is possible to use a macro to turn embedding on. It can be set 
as an autoexecute macro that runs when you select File Save.

See:
http://wordtips.vitalnews.com/Pages/T1701_Embedding_TrueType_Fonts_by_Default.html

Hope some of this is useful.

Tom
MSMVP
Windows Shell/User



"John Smith"  wrote in message 
news:SQjQf.42$Ay5.916@news.uswest.net...
| Is there a way to set the default to embed truetype fonts when saving
| documents?  I expected that setting the option in the options tab to 
have
| saved the option in the normal.dot and apply to all docuemnts based on
| normal.dot, but this doesn't seem to be the case.
|
|

It should not have taken long to find that out. I assumed everybody here
knew from the start that this change would have to be made in the template
(Normal.dot by default). Since I was not the first the respond to the post,
I didn't include that information.

-- 
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"Thomas Ferguson"  wrote in message
news:%23mD43IORGHA.1780@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi;
> It took a while to find the time to check this out. However, I located
> some information but have not had the time to try it.
>
> Load normal.dot, change the embedding options to those you want and save
> the template. Now, each document based on the template will inherit the
> setting.
>
> If you have modified Normal.dot, you might want to save a copy somewhere
> before making this change.
>
> Also, you might consider modifying a renamed copy of Normal dot instead
> and using that when you want fonts embedded. Remember that all documents
> that use Normal.dot will be affected if you make that change in it. Of
> course, ignore that idea if you see fit.
>
> Also, it is possible to use a macro to turn embedding on. It can be set
> as an autoexecute macro that runs when you select File Save.
>
> See:
>
http://wordtips.vitalnews.com/Pages/T1701_Embedding_TrueType_Fonts_by_Default.html
>
> Hope some of this is useful.
>
> Tom
> MSMVP
> Windows Shell/User
>
>
>
> "John Smith"  wrote in message
> news:SQjQf.42$Ay5.916@news.uswest.net...
> | Is there a way to set the default to embed truetype fonts when saving
> | documents?  I expected that setting the option in the options tab to
> have
> | saved the option in the normal.dot and apply to all docuemnts based on
> | normal.dot, but this doesn't seem to be the case.
> |
> |
>
>

I heard precisely this discussion the other day. Someone was saying that if
a child asked you how to light a fire with gasoline, you had an obligation
to at least point out that this is inadvisable.

In any case, I don't know what you mean by "she knows that embedding true
type fonts in a word document is necessary or not for the intended purpose."
After several readings, though, I'm beginning to get the glimmering that you
meant "she knows whether embedding TrueType fonts in a Word document is
necessary or not for the intended purpose." (I couldn't figure out how I
could be said to know that embedding fonts was necessary, much less how I
could know that it was "not for the intended purpose.")

I also do not know (or believe) that embedding fonts was once the standard
in earlier versions of Word. Word 2.0, the first version I had, was, I
believe, the first to use TrueType fonts. In fact, I still have documents
created with Word 2.0 (and not modified since creation), and the fonts are
not embedded. Indeed, I have numerous fonts, both TrueType and Type 1,
bought from third-party vendors.

-- 
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"Gary Haugen"  wrote in message
news:GCuQf.73$Ay5.1699@news.uswest.net...
> So to summarize this thread:
>
> Suzanne, assuming she knows that embedding true type fonts in a word
> document is necessary or not for the intended purpose, piously declares it
> unwise to do so.
>
> Thomas, without knowing the licensing terms related to the use of the
font,
> gives a half-baked lecture on intellectual property law.
>
> Character at least notes that the posts are unresponsive to the original
> question.
>
> Do any of you MVPs remember that embedding true type fonts was once the
> standard in earlier versions of word?
>
> Do any of you remember buying font packages from third party vendors to
fit
> specific needs?
>
> Does anyone know the answer to the original question, or is this an MVP
ego
> trip?
>
>
> "Character"  wrote in message
> news:NPnQf.44202$632.32553@fe05.news.easynews.com...
> > Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote:
> >
> >> Most users would be ill advised to make this the default, as it
> >> dramatically
> >> increases file size and in most cases is not necessary.
> >
> > That may be true, but the OP asked if was possible to make it the
default.
> >
> > Unfortunately, there's no way to specify "Use the embedded font EVEN IF
> > the font is already installed on the recipient's system". With today's
> > plethora of different versions of the same font, such an option becomes
> > more and more necessary if formatting (re-flow, pagination, etc.) is
> > critical and needs to be preserved.  There are operating system
> > restrictions that would have to be overcome to make such an option
> > feasible.
> >
> > You CAN make embedding the default in Adobe Acrobat; and you can specify
> > that common system fonts (Arial, TNR, etc.) NOT be embedded.
> >
> >  - Character
> >
>
>

You judge too severely based on insufficient information. There seems to 
be a lot of that "going around". You cannot know what time I had and when 
I had it. <g>

When I first scanned the thread, not having read each contribution, like 
you, I thought that someone had already answered the basic question. Big 
mistake, by the way. SO, I simply added a comment about embedding. Later, 
I had a moment more, so I read the entire thread. Indeed, it did not take 
long to get the basic information once I realised that, possibly, the 
original poster had not made the change to a template and was assuming 
that the change made to a document based on Normal.dot would read through 
to Normal.dot without any explicit action on his part to cause the 
change. I do not use embedding and that meant I had to verify. I still 
have not actually tested it. Perhaps I should have done that instead of 
this.

In my experience, very few Word users actually know much about templates 
and how they work, how they control various aspects of how Word behaves.

In any case, hopefully now that OP has what is needed to do what is 
wanted. Also, one hopes Gary Haugen, possibly also the OP, is having 
better day today than yesterday.



Tom
MSMVP
Windows Shell/User


"Suzanne S. Barnhill"  wrote in message 
news:uctfOvSRGHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| It should not have taken long to find that out. I assumed everybody 
here
| knew from the start that this change would have to be made in the 
template
| (Normal.dot by default). Since I was not the first the respond to the 
post,
| I didn't include that information.
|
| -- 
| Suzanne S. Barnhill
| Microsoft MVP (Word)
| Words into Type
| Fairhope, Alabama USA
| Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
| Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the 
newsgroup so
| all may benefit.
|

{snip}

Actually, it would appear that Gary Haugen is *not* the OP, who has probably
long since gone away satisfied or unsatisfied.

As for my reply to your message, I see I misread it as "It took a while to
check this out," meaning that it took you that long to find the information.
Sorry!

-- 
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"Thomas Ferguson"  wrote in message
news:OGBiK%23TRGHA.792@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> You judge too severely based on insufficient information. There seems to
> be a lot of that "going around". You cannot know what time I had and when
> I had it. <g>
>
> When I first scanned the thread, not having read each contribution, like
> you, I thought that someone had already answered the basic question. Big
> mistake, by the way. SO, I simply added a comment about embedding. Later,
> I had a moment more, so I read the entire thread. Indeed, it did not take
> long to get the basic information once I realised that, possibly, the
> original poster had not made the change to a template and was assuming
> that the change made to a document based on Normal.dot would read through
> to Normal.dot without any explicit action on his part to cause the
> change. I do not use embedding and that meant I had to verify. I still
> have not actually tested it. Perhaps I should have done that instead of
> this.
>
> In my experience, very few Word users actually know much about templates
> and how they work, how they control various aspects of how Word behaves.
>
> In any case, hopefully now that OP has what is needed to do what is
> wanted. Also, one hopes Gary Haugen, possibly also the OP, is having
> better day today than yesterday.
>
>
>
> Tom
> MSMVP
> Windows Shell/User
>
>
> "Suzanne S. Barnhill"  wrote in message
> news:uctfOvSRGHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> | It should not have taken long to find that out. I assumed everybody
> here
> | knew from the start that this change would have to be made in the
> template
> | (Normal.dot by default). Since I was not the first the respond to the
> post,
> | I didn't include that information.
> |
> | -- 
> | Suzanne S. Barnhill
> | Microsoft MVP (Word)
> | Words into Type
> | Fairhope, Alabama USA
> | Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
> | Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the
> newsgroup so
> | all may benefit.
> |
>
> {snip}
>
>

You might try the Microsoft Font Properties Extension at:

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/TrueTypeProperty21.mspx

It will show you which of the four levels of embedding are allowed for a 
particular font. Look at the font properties.

Gordo



"Suzanne S. Barnhill"  wrote in message 
news:O7YH5lURGHA.1688@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Actually, it would appear that Gary Haugen is *not* the OP, who has 
> probably
> long since gone away satisfied or unsatisfied.
>
> As for my reply to your message, I see I misread it as "It took a while to
> check this out," meaning that it took you that long to find the 
> information.
> Sorry!
>
> -- 
> Suzanne S. Barnhill
> Microsoft MVP (Word)
> Words into Type
> Fairhope, Alabama USA
> Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
> Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup 
> so
> all may benefit.
>
> "Thomas Ferguson"  wrote in message
> news:OGBiK%23TRGHA.792@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> You judge too severely based on insufficient information. There seems to
>> be a lot of that "going around". You cannot know what time I had and when
>> I had it. <g>
>>
>> When I first scanned the thread, not having read each contribution, like
>> you, I thought that someone had already answered the basic question. Big
>> mistake, by the way. SO, I simply added a comment about embedding. Later,
>> I had a moment more, so I read the entire thread. Indeed, it did not take
>> long to get the basic information once I realised that, possibly, the
>> original poster had not made the change to a template and was assuming
>> that the change made to a document based on Normal.dot would read through
>> to Normal.dot without any explicit action on his part to cause the
>> change. I do not use embedding and that meant I had to verify. I still
>> have not actually tested it. Perhaps I should have done that instead of
>> this.
>>
>> In my experience, very few Word users actually know much about templates
>> and how they work, how they control various aspects of how Word behaves.
>>
>> In any case, hopefully now that OP has what is needed to do what is
>> wanted. Also, one hopes Gary Haugen, possibly also the OP, is having
>> better day today than yesterday.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom
>> MSMVP
>> Windows Shell/User
>>
>>
>> "Suzanne S. Barnhill"  wrote in message
>> news:uctfOvSRGHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> | It should not have taken long to find that out. I assumed everybody
>> here
>> | knew from the start that this change would have to be made in the
>> template
>> | (Normal.dot by default). Since I was not the first the respond to the
>> post,
>> | I didn't include that information.
>> |
>> | -- 
>> | Suzanne S. Barnhill
>> | Microsoft MVP (Word)
>> | Words into Type
>> | Fairhope, Alabama USA
>> | Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
>> | Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the
>> newsgroup so
>> | all may benefit.
>> |
>>
>> {snip}
>>
>>
>

I seem to be writing ambiguous or misleading sentences. I must try to 
stop that. "Also, one hopes Gary Haugen, possibly also the OP, is having 
better day today than yesterday", was certainly one of those. I should 
have written something more like: Also, one hopes Gary Haugen, and 
possibly also the OP, is having a better day today than yesterday. What a 
difference a word makes. I suppose it's possible that they are one and 
the same; however, all one can say about that is they seem to share an 
Internet provider.

Tom
MSMVP|

My apologies to the group for my post from my home account.  Yes, Gary 
Haugen and I are one and the same.  I admit that I should have figured out 
the problem on my own, however under the pressure of getting an answer for a 
few unhappy users, I forgot that I had changed my startup group to test some 
new templates and wasn't saving through to the proper normal.dot.

Having said that, I would like to make a few points about my second post. 
As some of you note, the answer to the original question was not posted 
until after my little rant (I freely admit the two actions were not 
connected).  So, seeing the then current posts to my question and given the 
circumstances described below, I lost it and posted my response to what, 
frankly seemed like a lot of unresponsive, smug comments.

Years ago we spent over 6 weeks of time and a considerable amount of money 
developing fonts that would give our work product a distinctive look and (in 
that day before e-mail being a common place medium of communication), be 
intelligible after multiple facsimile transmissions. So, assuming that the 
company we worked with was legitimate, copyright issues are unlikely to be 
applicable in our case.

Embedding the fonts in a 60 page document typically adds slightly less than 
100k to the document's size.  In today's world, that is not a prohibitive 
overhead. I don't recall having to make a change in normal.dot to embed 
fonts in previous editions of Word, although I will concede its been years 
since we set our NT system up, which we just replaced with XP, so maybe we 
did.

We appreciate the uses of pdf files, and use them extensively.  However, 
pdfs don't always work well when circulating draft documents.  We often need 
to simultaneously circulate live, working drafts of documents to many 
parties.  To facilitate discussion about proposed revisions, we want those 
documents to have (as closely as possible) the same appearance in the hands 
of each party.  For many reasons, we had previously rejected the use of 
common system fonts as a resolution to this issue.  Further with respect to 
pdf files, we often have far more difficulty getting people to work with 
annotated pdf files than using Word documents.

In conclusion, I apologize again.  I have found that newsgroups are a 
valuable resource and never have made a similar post before.

I think your acrimony was justified. I seem to have led the pack in getting
off on the wrong foot. In my haste to advise against embedding, I somehow
managed to miss the obvious, which was to point out the embedding is a
document-specific setting and that the flag would have to be set in
Normal.dot (or another document template) in order to apply to documents in
general.

I would still say that in most cases it would be inadvisable to set the flag
in Normal.dot, which even in the situation you describe would surely be used
to create many documents that didn't require this specific custom font.
OTOH, as long as the "Do not embed common system fonts" box was also
checked, presumably no harm would be done, as there would be no embedding
for these many insignificant, everyday documents.

As to the burden added by embedding fonts, 100KB would be quite significant
for most of the documents I create, as it would more than double the file
size, and it would be especially burdensome when transmitting files
electronically (especially over a dial-up connection). For the types of
documents you describe, however, it doubtless adds proportionally much less
to the file size.

-- 
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"John Smith"  wrote in message
news:U9pSf.45$rN1.1273@news.uswest.net...
> My apologies to the group for my post from my home account.  Yes, Gary
> Haugen and I are one and the same.  I admit that I should have figured out
> the problem on my own, however under the pressure of getting an answer for
a
> few unhappy users, I forgot that I had changed my startup group to test
some
> new templates and wasn't saving through to the proper normal.dot.
>
> Having said that, I would like to make a few points about my second post.
> As some of you note, the answer to the original question was not posted
> until after my little rant (I freely admit the two actions were not
> connected).  So, seeing the then current posts to my question and given
the
> circumstances described below, I lost it and posted my response to what,
> frankly seemed like a lot of unresponsive, smug comments.
>
> Years ago we spent over 6 weeks of time and a considerable amount of money
> developing fonts that would give our work product a distinctive look and
(in
> that day before e-mail being a common place medium of communication), be
> intelligible after multiple facsimile transmissions. So, assuming that the
> company we worked with was legitimate, copyright issues are unlikely to be
> applicable in our case.
>
> Embedding the fonts in a 60 page document typically adds slightly less
than
> 100k to the document's size.  In today's world, that is not a prohibitive
> overhead. I don't recall having to make a change in normal.dot to embed
> fonts in previous editions of Word, although I will concede its been years
> since we set our NT system up, which we just replaced with XP, so maybe we
> did.
>
> We appreciate the uses of pdf files, and use them extensively.  However,
> pdfs don't always work well when circulating draft documents.  We often
need
> to simultaneously circulate live, working drafts of documents to many
> parties.  To facilitate discussion about proposed revisions, we want those
> documents to have (as closely as possible) the same appearance in the
hands
> of each party.  For many reasons, we had previously rejected the use of
> common system fonts as a resolution to this issue.  Further with respect
to
> pdf files, we often have far more difficulty getting people to work with
> annotated pdf files than using Word documents.
>
> In conclusion, I apologize again.  I have found that newsgroups are a
> valuable resource and never have made a similar post before.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi;

My mother once said to me, "If the shoe fits, wear it.". I'm sure many
have heard that one before. In that spirit, I am trying on "smug".
Perhaps. However, that shoe pinches a bit on the heel. I was once called
self-satisfied. That pinched a bit, too.

You obviously came to the newsgroup with high expectations and, as one of
the participants, thank you for that.  For my part, I am sorry we failed
to meet them in a more timely, alert manner. In an insufficient
counter-point, allow me to point out that my reply was to Character's
point, not yours. However, it was truly part of the thread you started.
It was intended to bear on the reasons for not allowing embedding of all
fonts. Also, it was intended as a general point and not focused on your
particular situation with regard to fonts used. You correctly point out
that I have no knowledge on that last matter.

You would seem to have considerable experience with Word. Hopefully, you
will return from time-to-time and help us out.


All the best.

Tom
MSMVP
Windows Shell/User


"John Smith"  wrote in message
news:U9pSf.45$rN1.1273@news.uswest.net...
| My apologies to the group for my post from my home account.  Yes, Gary
| Haugen and I are one and the same.  I admit that I should have figured
out
| the problem on my own, however under the pressure of getting an answer
for a
| few unhappy users, I forgot that I had changed my startup group to test
some
| new templates and wasn't saving through to the proper normal.dot.
|
| Having said that, I would like to make a few points about my second
post.
| As some of you note, the answer to the original question was not posted
| until after my little rant (I freely admit the two actions were not
| connected).  So, seeing the then current posts to my question and given
the
| circumstances described below, I lost it and posted my response to
what,
| frankly seemed like a lot of unresponsive, smug comments.
|
| Years ago we spent over 6 weeks of time and a considerable amount of
money
| developing fonts that would give our work product a distinctive look
and (in
| that day before e-mail being a common place medium of communication),
be
| intelligible after multiple facsimile transmissions. So, assuming that
the
| company we worked with was legitimate, copyright issues are unlikely to
be
| applicable in our case.
|
| Embedding the fonts in a 60 page document typically adds slightly less
than
| 100k to the document's size.  In today's world, that is not a
prohibitive
| overhead. I don't recall having to make a change in normal.dot to embed
| fonts in previous editions of Word, although I will concede its been
years
| since we set our NT system up, which we just replaced with XP, so maybe
we
| did.
|
| We appreciate the uses of pdf files, and use them extensively.
However,
| pdfs don't always work well when circulating draft documents.  We often
need
| to simultaneously circulate live, working drafts of documents to many
| parties.  To facilitate discussion about proposed revisions, we want
those
| documents to have (as closely as possible) the same appearance in the
hands
| of each party.  For many reasons, we had previously rejected the use of
| common system fonts as a resolution to this issue.  Further with
respect to
| pdf files, we often have far more difficulty getting people to work
with
| annotated pdf files than using Word documents.
|
| In conclusion, I apologize again.  I have found that newsgroups are a
| valuable resource and never have made a similar post before.
|
|
|
|
|
|