[HN Gopher] Adobe is dropping PostScript Type 1 font support
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Adobe is dropping PostScript Type 1 font support
        
       Author : ingve
       Score  : 35 points
       Date   : 2021-05-18 07:09 UTC (15 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.macworld.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.macworld.com)
        
       | murgindrag wrote:
       | And this seems like yet another good reason to drop Adobe.
       | 
       | I want things I author to be archival, not ephemeral.
       | 
       | * Dropping Flash? Good idea. Dropping Flash with no
       | compatibility/emulation path? Bad idea.
       | 
       | * Switching to license servers from owning software? Bad idea.
       | 
       | And so on. I like the things I do, and I like many of thing
       | things I did 35 years ago too. I'd be sad to see them dead. At
       | the end of the day, I'm willing to take a productivity hit to
       | ensure that if I do create something really good, it's eternal.
       | 
       | Even in retirement, someday, I won't expect to be able to afford
       | the Adobe tax. Do I want my creative work disappearing? No.
        
         | DiabloD3 wrote:
         | I get your sentiment, but what Adobe does is of almost no
         | consequence to the rest of the world. Type 1 fonts can never go
         | away, and are required to be implemented in one form or
         | another.
         | 
         | For example, the actual outlines (once losslessly transformed
         | into CFF/Type 2) are required to be supported by any OpenType-
         | speaking rasterization engine _until the end of time_ ; this is
         | as per ISO/IEC 14496-22 aka MPEG4 Part 22, a specification that
         | is mostly Microsoft contributions, building on top of Apple's
         | TrueType font specification (which was also adopted by
         | Microsoft circa Windows 3.1). Adobe's only contribution to any
         | of this was providing Type 1/Type 2 glyph support (which was
         | already standardized as ISO 9541).
         | 
         | Adobe's proposed replacement, which never was adopted, is Type
         | 3: Type 1/2 fonts, but with the full power of Postscript to
         | manage the actual rendering (as to do hand-tuned hinting, and
         | such). This was designed to be a push into display-oriented
         | fonts, instead of only having a font format that is optimal for
         | print...
         | 
         | Except TrueType hinting already has existed for 30 years, and
         | hand-hinting is falling out of fashion as 200%+ DPI is becoming
         | the norm. In the future, we're just going to go back to
         | grayscale AA, no hand-hinting at 9-14px ranges, no subpixel
         | rendering, and at this scale hinting at all has a negligible
         | effect.
         | 
         | Type 3 is not supported by OpenType's OTF or by WOFF, yet I can
         | transform existing Type 1 formats (of which there are several)
         | into OTF or WOFF, and continue using them with Freetype,
         | DirectWrite, OSX's renderer, and in all major web browsers,
         | with their glyphs exactly as intended by the original artist.
         | 
         | People, usually, do not use Adobe tools to author fonts. They
         | are not the best in class, and also produce fonts that don't
         | comply with the relevant specifications.
         | 
         | People, usually, do not use Adobe tools to author PDFs. They
         | are not the best in class, and also produce PDFs that don't
         | comply with the relevant specifications.
         | 
         | I can repeat this statement for basically everything Adobe
         | makes: of formats they invented, they don't comply with _their
         | own specification_ while everyone else does, and there is a
         | better domain-specific tool out there that replaces the use of
         | them.
         | 
         | The only counter-example in Adobe's entire portfolio is
         | Photoshop: it's not great at every _specific_ use, but its the
         | swiss army chainsaw of raster image manipulation; there 's
         | _several_ better tools that do a specific task _much_ better,
         | but nobody has been idiotic enough to produce a tool that does
         | all of them mediocrely at the same time.
        
         | robertoandred wrote:
         | Can Animate not open Flash files?
        
         | tjohns wrote:
         | There are certain file formats that are explicitly designed to
         | be archival safe, like PDF/A. For long term stability, I always
         | try to export a copy to one of those.
         | 
         | File formats like .doc or .psd that are tied to evolving
         | product lines are bound to change eventually. They're great for
         | working copies, but I don't expect those file formats to still
         | be readable in 10-20 years. Unless the file format explicitly
         | calls out long-term archival as a feature, I assume a PM will
         | eventually change the file format and break things.
         | 
         | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF/A
        
         | VWWHFSfQ wrote:
         | it's not like there aren't a million tools to read postscript
         | type 1 fonts. I think your documents are probably safe
        
           | Someone wrote:
           | Having software that can interpret type 1 fonts doesn't help
           | in getting Photoshop to keep reading those fonts.
        
       | orionblastar wrote:
       | I remember Adobe Type Manager for Windows 3.1, how far things
       | have come.
        
       | greenwich26 wrote:
       | Do they not understand that designers, and especially publishers,
       | have projects that go on and need to still be editable for years
       | and years? I have dozens of books on backlist from past decades
       | with type 1 fonts. Some day I might want to do another printing
       | run, in which case I need to be able to open them and edit the
       | copyright page and fix typos and so on. Preferably when I do this
       | I don't discover that the whole thing needs to be retypeset.
       | Graphic designers must exist in the same position.
       | 
       | Thank God we use TeX/groff and not InDesign.
        
         | yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
         | > we use TeX/groff and not InDesign.
         | 
         | Surely that _is_ a takeaway here: Open standards, open formats,
         | open source. And maybe  "not Adobe" for good measure;) Nobody
         | ever will - or _can_ truly kill groff support for something;
         | even if it were removed from the (many) implementations, you
         | can just build an old checkout and be back in business.
        
       | inopinatus wrote:
       | Nice shout out for Albertus there. This is a typeface I recommend
       | reserving for use as an occasional decorative font, especially
       | for map titles, or for signage. The utility is social, being a
       | signal to others, in particular a secret order of iconoclasts
       | possessing great taste in mid-century British avant-garde
       | allegorical television; they will respond in kind, and these are
       | people you can trust.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-05-18 23:01 UTC)