Embedded font looks different in dot and doc

I got a rather complex dot template saved with the embed all fonts
option turned on (univers family). Now I had to discover, that these
fonts look different whether I open up just the dot itslef or if I
create a new document based on that template???! How can that be???!
Using Office XP, fonts are not installed on the test machines.
Thanks for any hints! Luc

Hi Luc

Luc Benninger wrote:
I got a rather complex dot template saved with the embed all fonts
option turned on (univers family).

I seem to remember that some fonts do allow embedding, while others
don't. Univers (on of Adrian Frutiger's fonts) might well belong to the
latter category. Word (at least, say, in the 2000 version) didn't tell
you a thing about it, so you never really knew whether the fonts
actually got embedded for real.


Now I had to discover, that these
fonts look different whether I open up just the dot itslef or if I
create a new document based on that template???! How can that be???!

No idea! Can you specify the differences a bit in detail?


Using Office XP, fonts are not installed on the test machines.

Not sure whether Word 2002 had the same dialogue, but what does Tools |
Options | Compatibility: Font Substitution tell you?

2cents
Robert
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | MS
\ / | MVP
X Against HTML | for
/ \ in e-mail & news | Word

Embedding fonts doesn't work if --

The fonts are not TrueType fonts, eg Type 1 fonts, which is the format used
for good quality professional fonts. (Check the font file extension -- is it
"ttf" ?)

The fonts are encoding to prohibit embedding. This is often the case with
proprietary fonts: they are copyright and the copyright owner expects a fee
for each machine on which they are used.




"Luc Benninger" wrote in message
...
I got a rather complex dot template saved with the embed all fonts
option turned on (univers family). Now I had to discover, that these
fonts look different whether I open up just the dot itslef or if I
create a new document based on that template???! How can that be???!
Using Office XP, fonts are not installed on the test machines.
Thanks for any hints! Luc

I took a closer look:
If I open up the dot template and click the "Font Substitution" button
in tools/options, I get the "all fonts available" message. So the
univers font seems really to be embedded in the dot. Also the page looks
ok on the screen. So I guess the used truetype fonts are ebeddable.

If I doubleclick on this template (the same dot file) to generate a new
document and then press the "Font Substitution" button, it tells me the
univers fonts are missing!!? Word replaces them with Arial. Of course
the page now looks different.

I tested this also with an office 2003 installation, different machine,
and also with different truetype fonts (but not the office standard
ones). Same result. I can't believe my eyes... ??!?



Robert M. Franz wrote:
Hi Luc

Luc Benninger wrote:

I got a rather complex dot template saved with the embed all fonts
option turned on (univers family).


I seem to remember that some fonts do allow embedding, while others
don't. Univers (on of Adrian Frutiger's fonts) might well belong to the
latter category. Word (at least, say, in the 2000 version) didn't tell
you a thing about it, so you never really knew whether the fonts
actually got embedded for real.


Now I had to discover, that these fonts look different whether I open
up just the dot itslef or if I create a new document based on that
template???! How can that be???!


No idea! Can you specify the differences a bit in detail?


Using Office XP, fonts are not installed on the test machines.


Not sure whether Word 2002 had the same dialogue, but what does Tools |
Options | Compatibility: Font Substitution tell you?

2cents
Robert

What can't you believe? The embedding has obviously failed.



"Luc Benninger" wrote in message
...
I took a closer look:
If I open up the dot template and click the "Font Substitution" button
in tools/options, I get the "all fonts available" message. So the
univers font seems really to be embedded in the dot. Also the page looks
ok on the screen. So I guess the used truetype fonts are ebeddable.

If I doubleclick on this template (the same dot file) to generate a new
document and then press the "Font Substitution" button, it tells me the
univers fonts are missing!!? Word replaces them with Arial. Of course
the page now looks different.

I tested this also with an office 2003 installation, different machine,
and also with different truetype fonts (but not the office standard
ones). Same result. I can't believe my eyes... ??!?



Robert M. Franz wrote:
Hi Luc

Luc Benninger wrote:

I got a rather complex dot template saved with the embed all fonts
option turned on (univers family).


I seem to remember that some fonts do allow embedding, while others
don't. Univers (on of Adrian Frutiger's fonts) might well belong to the
latter category. Word (at least, say, in the 2000 version) didn't tell
you a thing about it, so you never really knew whether the fonts
actually got embedded for real.


Now I had to discover, that these fonts look different whether I open
up just the dot itslef or if I create a new document based on that
template???! How can that be???!


No idea! Can you specify the differences a bit in detail?


Using Office XP, fonts are not installed on the test machines.


Not sure whether Word 2002 had the same dialogue, but what does Tools |
Options | Compatibility: Font Substitution tell you?

2cents
Robert

It's also possible that font embedding is not carried over from template to
document. Since this is a per-document setting, it's possible it needs to be
explicitly enabled in each document.

--
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.

"Jezebel" wrote in message
...
What can't you believe? The embedding has obviously failed.



"Luc Benninger" wrote in message
...
I took a closer look:
If I open up the dot template and click the "Font Substitution" button
in tools/options, I get the "all fonts available" message. So the
univers font seems really to be embedded in the dot. Also the page looks
ok on the screen. So I guess the used truetype fonts are ebeddable.

If I doubleclick on this template (the same dot file) to generate a new
document and then press the "Font Substitution" button, it tells me the
univers fonts are missing!!? Word replaces them with Arial. Of course
the page now looks different.

I tested this also with an office 2003 installation, different machine,
and also with different truetype fonts (but not the office standard
ones). Same result. I can't believe my eyes... ??!?



Robert M. Franz wrote:
Hi Luc

Luc Benninger wrote:

I got a rather complex dot template saved with the embed all fonts
option turned on (univers family).


I seem to remember that some fonts do allow embedding, while others
don't. Univers (on of Adrian Frutiger's fonts) might well belong to
the
latter category. Word (at least, say, in the 2000 version) didn't tell
you a thing about it, so you never really knew whether the fonts
actually got embedded for real.


Now I had to discover, that these fonts look different whether I open
up just the dot itslef or if I create a new document based on that
template???! How can that be???!


No idea! Can you specify the differences a bit in detail?


Using Office XP, fonts are not installed on the test machines.


Not sure whether Word 2002 had the same dialogue, but what does Tools
|
Options | Compatibility: Font Substitution tell you?

2cents
Robert