font compatability with PC installations of Word

[Jeff Wiseman]

I've poked around m.p.m.o.word for a while with google and
haven't found an exact answer to this question so any help here
would be greatly appreciated.

I'm running Office 2004 (Word version shows as 11.1) on a G5 iMac
with OS 10.3.6. I have a need to create Word documents that will
be read on PCs with various editions of Word installed. I do not
want these small documents reflowing and having font substitution
and symbol characters being replaced. I have been assuming that
if I simply stick to using the default font set provided by
Microsoft with Word 2004 for the Mac, then there shouldn't be any
problems.

My readings of earlier postings in this group lead me to believe
otherwise.

My installation has apparently installed all the latest and
greatest MS unicode fonts provided with office and its updates.
However, If I am to create a document using these fonts and then
pass it to a PC running an earlier version of Word with older
fonts, I am led to believe that even some of the characters can
change when viewed with the older font sets of the same exact
names (i.e., no font substitution).

1) Is this true?

2) If it is true, what steps can I take to avoid it. I really
need page breaks, Line breaks, Line spacing, and font
presentation, etc. to stay as I've defined it (without having to
create large PDF files with embedded fonts).

3) Can this issue be reduced by avoiding the use of certain
characters/symbols in the font sets or even the use of certain
complete sets?

Thanks for any info shedding light on this!

- Jeff

 

[Andreas Prilop]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Jeff Wiseman wrote:

[You mean "compatibility".]

2) If it is true, what steps can I take to avoid it. I really
need page breaks, Line breaks, Line spacing, and font
presentation, etc. to stay as I've defined it (without having to
create large PDF files with embedded fonts).

You will get different page breaks etc. even on the same computer
with the same Word version and the same fonts if you just switch
to a different printer driver.

If you need defined line breaks etc., you must use a page layout
program like PageMaker or InDesign. MS Word is not made for
such tasks.

 

[CyberTaz]

Hi Jeff-

I can't offer any absolutes, but here are a few thoughts based on
experience:

1) Yes, this certainly can & does happen. Two key ingredients in
minimizing the possibility are a) consistency from one system to
another where the doc wil be displayed/printed, and b) constructing the
doc based on appropriate use of the software (no spaces instead of
tabs,etc.). The more the creator "improvises" in forcing the document
structure, the more likely & severe the deviation from one system to
the next. Differences in font availability, etc. amplify the problems.

2) I'm a little confused on this point because you indicate that these
are "small documents", but you fear large PDFs. I'm not clear why the
latter would be the case. However, you might consider using the Save As
Web Page option to create Word HTML files which may give you what you
want as long as the PC users aren't working with versions that don't
support that file type. I don't know that this will resolve your
dilemma, but it may help.

3) This point kind of relates back to point 1. If the same fonts are
availabile on each system, the problems should be minimal at worst.
Different versions of fonts are based on the same proportional
algorithms, so that should not be a serious issue. The newer features
(such as ligatures) should be avoided, but a typical Times New Roman
lower case "a" should not be defined with different dimensions whether
TrueType, OpenType, Unicode, etc. If New York gets substituted for
Times New Roman, well you can just imagine.

I doubt that this clarifies much, but hopefully it may help a little
|:>)

 

[Jeff Wiseman]

[You mean "compatibility".]

Thanks for reminding me. If no one says anything, I'll never
learn

You will get different page breaks etc. even on the same computer
with the same Word version and the same fonts if you just switch
to a different printer driver.

So just by switching printer for a particular document, the
document can reflow differently? Even with the defined margins
all the same, etc.? That kinda bites, don't it.

If you need defined line breaks etc., you must use a page layout
program like PageMaker or InDesign. MS Word is not made for
such tasks.

Maybe It's not quite as critical as that. For example, to avoid
undesired page breaks you can allow extra space, etc. The real
thing that I want to avoid is having characters in a given font
change into different characters, or an entirely different
leading dimension just by going to a machine with a different
version of the same exact font name. Will an apostrophe always be
an apostrophe even if I go from a unicode type font named "X" on
my machine to a non unicode font named "X" on another? That's the
type of thing I'm more concerned about.

- Jeff

 

[Jeff Wiseman]

Hi Jeff-

I can't offer any absolutes, but here are a few thoughts based on
experience:

1) Yes, this certainly can & does happen. Two key ingredients in
minimizing the possibility are a) consistency from one system to
another where the doc wil be displayed/printed, and b) constructing the
doc based on appropriate use of the software (no spaces instead of
tabs,etc.). The more the creator "improvises" in forcing the document
structure, the more likely & severe the deviation from one system to
the next. Differences in font availability, etc. amplify the problems.

I do understand these issue and I try to preach them some myself.
Goes way back to a book I read many years ago Titled "The Mac is
not a Typewriter"

My original question was spurred by rumors I'd heard of a
character or symbol being typed in on one machine and showing up
with a totally different value on another even though the same
font was used but with a different version. I've had bullets in a
Times font change to a totally different symbol in the New Roman
version. That is understandable but can it happen when using the
same font and limiting it to the main character set?

2) I'm a little confused on this point because you indicate that these
are "small documents", but you fear large PDFs. I'm not clear why the
latter would be the case. However, you might consider using the Save As
Web Page option to create Word HTML files which may give you what you
want as long as the PC users aren't working with versions that don't
support that file type. I don't know that this will resolve your
dilemma, but it may help.

I keep forgetting that "small" and "large" are having different
meanings these days (I've been in computer systems for over a
quarter century now Most of this stuff will be emailed and
I've always tried to keep email sizes down as much as possible. A
PDF would be 3 or 4 times the size of the Word doc.

One thing driving this all currently is distribution of my
resume. EVERYONE seems to want them in Word format ONLY. What's
to keep a resume that I create on my system with the current
fonts from showing up on an important recruiters system with
boxes and squiggles in place of my contact phone number? This may
be far fetched but so far I've not seen anything to show that it
couldn't happen.

3) This point kind of relates back to point 1. If the same fonts are
availabile on each system, the problems should be minimal at worst.
Different versions of fonts are based on the same proportional
algorithms, so that should not be a serious issue. The newer features
(such as ligatures) should be avoided, but a typical Times New Roman
lower case "a" should not be defined with different dimensions whether
TrueType, OpenType, Unicode, etc. If New York gets substituted for
Times New Roman, well you can just imagine.

I guess the only solution is a postscript type output where the
definition of a line says that all the characters have to be
there and reflowing by changing the print driver isn't possible.

I doubt that this clarifies much, but hopefully it may help a little

It does. Greatly appreciated!

- Jeff

 

[Andreas Prilop]

However, you might consider using the Save As
Web Page option to create Word HTML files

Oh, horror! Have you ever inspect the source text of
a "Word HTML file"? Never do this!

 

[Andreas Prilop]

EVERYONE seems to want them in Word format ONLY.

People demanding this (the clueless) are usually quite happy
when you send them RTF files.

 

[Andreas Prilop]

So just by switching printer for a particular document, the
document can reflow differently? Even with the defined margins
all the same, etc.? That kinda bites, don't it.

This really happens. I made such experience when switching
between printer drivers for a PostScript laser printer and
a non-PostScript ink printer (same computer, same program,
same fonts, etc.).

The real
thing that I want to avoid is having characters in a given font
change into different characters,

You should tell us which characters you have in mind:
ordinary English? Greek? Russian?

or an entirely different
leading dimension just by going to a machine with a different
version of the same exact font name.

This may happen when you don't specify an exact line height.
Always specify, say, "line height 14 pt" but not "automatic".

Will an apostrophe always be
an apostrophe even if I go from a unicode type font named "X" on
my machine to a non unicode font named "X" on another? That's the
type of thing I'm more concerned about.

The characters common to Windows-1252 (Windows West European)
and MacRoman usually don't cause any problems.

 

[Jeff Wiseman]

You should tell us which characters you have in mind:
ordinary English? Greek? Russian?

Only English for the Time being.

This may happen when you don't specify an exact line height.
Always specify, say, "line height 14 pt" but not "automatic".

I've learned that trick. I was always used to working on
applications and installations where the default was that for the
font being used (i.e., no extra leading). Word doesn't do that so
I always have to put it in. Once I've learned how to control my
preferences, I will probably be able to control these things more
easily.

The characters common to Windows-1252 (Windows West European)
and MacRoman usually don't cause any problems.

Even when moving between unicode and non-unicode versions of the
same font, eh? That's what I'm hoping for. I'm looking for ways
to prove this to myself.

- JEff

 

[Jeff Wiseman]

People demanding this (the clueless) are usually quite happy
when you send them RTF files.

But an RTF file will have the same problems, won't it? It'll
simply be pulled into Word and reflowed and "fontasized" based on
the installed fonts at that location, reintroducing the same
issues as if you had just sent a Word document to them. Am I
missing something here?

Jeff

 

[Beth Rosengard]

Maybe It's not quite as critical as that. For example, to avoid
undesired page breaks you can allow extra space, etc.

You can minimize a lot of the differences in flow by using "Keep lines
together," "Keep with next," and "Page break before" (Format> Paragraph>
Line and Page Breaks). This is much more dependable than using manual page
breaks or extra space.

For more on PC/Mac compatibility (including fonts), see here:
<http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/word2004/using.aspx?pid=usingword2004
&type=howto&article=/mac/LIBRARY/how_to_articles/office2004/wd_compat2004.xm
l>

--
***Please always reply to the newsgroup!***

Beth Rosengard
Mac MVP

Mac Word FAQ: <http://word.mvps.org/MacWordNew/index.htm>
Entourage Help Page: <http://www.entourage.mvps.org>

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Hi Jeff:

So just by switching printer for a particular document, the
document can reflow differently? Even with the defined margins
all the same, etc.? That kinda bites, don't it.

Actually, "No" It's a feature Word-processors are designed to
automatically flow text, and they do that! A high-end word-processor such
as Word, WordPerfect or Adobe FrameMaker should obtain the measurements for
the page size and font metrics from the printer driver as well as from the
font itself.

It should then flow the text to paginate correctly with the printer and font
versions in use. It would be a bug if it didn't.

Maybe It's not quite as critical as that. For example, to avoid
undesired page breaks you can allow extra space, etc. The real
thing that I want to avoid is having characters in a given font
change into different characters, or an entirely different
leading dimension just by going to a machine with a different
version of the same exact font name. Will an apostrophe always be
an apostrophe even if I go from a unicode type font named "X" on
my machine to a non unicode font named "X" on another? That's the
type of thing I'm more concerned about.

If you work in unicode-enabled fonts, you will have no
character-substitution problems. The fonts Microsoft provides are
specifically designed to minimise the variation when moving from Mac to PC
and back.

Unicode does not substitute characters, but it will switch fonts. If the
font you specify is not available on the destination computer, the machine
will substitute the next closest matching font.

If the closest matching font does not have the character you want, in
Unicode you will get blank box characters. You will not get character
substitution, but you can get "no character"

My fonts of choice for avoiding this kind of difficulty are Times New Roman
and Arial. The MS versions of both of these have a large character set that
includes most of the characters one could need.

There are alternatives, as I am sure the others will mention. I also have a
copy of Arial Unicode MS installed on this Mac. It's a PC font: but as far
as I know, it has every known character in the Unicode character set up to
Unicode version 3.2. That's 32,000 characters. The latest version of
Unicode is 4.0, which contains 64,000 characters -- but nobody has built a
font that big yet...

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 4 1209 1410

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Why not, Andreas?

Ummm... A WordML file is "not" HTML. It "contains" HTML. It also contains
lotsa XML. It's in fact an XML application.

It was never designed to create web pages. It's designed to fully export
the entire content of a Word file and all the special widgets and features
to a vendor-neutral open standard. The Word Markup Language implementation
is an XML DTD as defined by the W3C.

But it was designed for machines to read, not humans. If you don't like it,
don't look

Now, I have a sneaking suspicion that you already know all that What I
am mystified about is how you could miss the point? Jeff's point was that
he wanted to move a file from one platform to another and retain full
compatibility.

WordML or XML will do that. HTML won't. The HTML language cannot describe
the content of a Word document, the document is too complex: the language
won't stretch that far. XML will.

But I think it's incumbent on us industry professionals to take care that
the advice we give is actually useable. In this case, I think we need to
stop advising users not to use Word XML. It Works. I think we also need to
stop advising them to strip Word's XML with filters. That doesn't work:
what they get left with is no longer a Word document, and Word is unable to
correctly reconstruct or edit their document if they do that.

Cheers

Oh, horror! Have you ever inspect the source text of
a "Word HTML file"? Never do this!

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 4 1209 1410

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Hi Jeff:

No, you are not missing anything. Word processors reflow text. If you do
not want the text reflowed, as has already been mentioned, you need a page
layout application. Not Word.

On the other hand, in Word 2004, you have the option to choose Unicode
fonts. If you do, character substitution will not be one of the problems
you have to deal with.

I would also caution you about setting absolute line heights. You "can",
but if you do, Word cannot adjust the line height as required by the content
of the line. This can make it extremely difficult to work with pictures.
Like anything else, specifying line heights is fine so long as you know when
NOT to do it

Cheers

But an RTF file will have the same problems, won't it? It'll
simply be pulled into Word and reflowed and "fontasized" based on
the installed fonts at that location, reintroducing the same
issues as if you had just sent a Word document to them. Am I
missing something here?

Jeff

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 4 1209 1410

 

[Jeff Wiseman]

Hi John,

Actually, "No" It's a feature Word-processors are designed to
automatically flow text, and they do that! A high-end word-processor such
as Word, WordPerfect or Adobe FrameMaker should obtain the measurements for
the page size and font metrics from the printer driver as well as from the
font itself.

It should then flow the text to paginate correctly with the printer and font
versions in use. It would be a bug if it didn't.

Ok, I guess that I've always assumed that if certain parameters
were kept the same between locations, then the application would
always tend to reflow the document the same. I also guess that I
always assumed that all of those parameters were contained in the
document file itself (e.g., page and margin size and font
name/metrics). It seems now that although a specific font
identifies a character spacing of "x" trys to put a specific
number of characters on a line, the driver of a given printer
might say "No, I can't squeeze my text that much so you (i.e.,
the word processor app) will have to break the line prematurely".

Also, other potential processor settings (such as kerning) could
be turned on in one location but not another resulting in
inconsistent line breaks between locations as well. This metric
also doesn't seem to be stored in the document file.

My past experience was primarily with PostScript printers which I
supposed reduce these types of problems a bit.

As this thread has progressed, I've become more aware that the
issues I was really exploring was how much I can rely on any
ability to:

1) Eliminate character changes when Microsoft fonts of the exact
same name but different versions are used.

2) Reduce line break inconsistency when page sizes and identical
fonts are used (seems not totally possible now due to different
print drivers and other display metrics that aren't stored in the
actual document).

If you work in unicode-enabled fonts, you will have no
character-substitution problems. The fonts Microsoft provides are
specifically designed to minimise the variation when moving from Mac to PC
and back.

Again, my assumption originally was that if the same exact fonts
were being used except for variations in the version number, the
fact that the doc is being viewed on a Mac or PC didn't come into
the question. I had heard that essentially a character or symbol
in a given version of a specifically named font might not still
be in that same position in a later version of that font (I.e.,
the forward compatibility of the various font versions)

If my assumption was correct, all I needed to do was ensure that
I only used the most common fonts that Microsoft has always
traditionally distributed with their Word applications over the
years. This would be fairly simple. If it's true though that
fonts of the same name do not have this forward compatibility in
character positions, then it becomes a far greater problem.

I am also beginning to get the feeling that font metrics such as
character widths can change from version to version in the same
font name. This, of course, can change the position of soft line
breaks during reflow so I'm wondering if this is true or not.

Unicode does not substitute characters, but it will switch fonts. If the
font you specify is not available on the destination computer, the machine
will substitute the next closest matching font.

If the closest matching font does not have the character you want, in
Unicode you will get blank box characters. You will not get character
substitution, but you can get "no character"

That all seems reasonable and would meet normal expectations.
"Times" is not the same font as "Times New Roman" even though
there are similarities in both the format and even the name. If
you have to substitute, it is expected that things can change.

However, I would expect a document written with Times version 1.0
to look identical if rendered with Times version 2.0 (if such
version numbers actually exist) all other things (including print
drivers now being the same. I've not gotten a clear answer on
this one yet.

My fonts of choice for avoiding this kind of difficulty are Times New Roman
and Arial. The MS versions of both of these have a large character set that
includes most of the characters one could need.

That is exactly how I've been approaching it currently. If I
remember correctly, Mac OS X comes with Arial and Arial Narrow.
However, I'm using the version provided By MS simply on the
chance that it has a better compatibility with the PC world of
Word. Is this an issue or not?

I understand the difference between a page layout program and
Word. I am at the moment only a light to medium user of Word for
transport to other platforms. Besides I'm $$$ stuck so can't
justify purchasing anything in a page layout type of support,
Everyone just INSISTS on receiving these documents in Word format
anyway. For many other software tools I've worked with over the
years, I've discovered that by understanding exactly what it can
and CAN'T do, I can maximize how it can be used. It's a bad
substitute for a page layout program, I know.

So the trick is, how can you make Word behave as closely as
possible to a simple layout type program when you have no control
over the destination environment. Obviously one of the key items
is the font selection you use. Another might be the Word version
that you store your document as. What are the things that I CAN
control to minimize significant changes to a document when
someone receives it and displays it onver some other version of
Word on another platform? These are the answers I'm working on at
the present.

Thanks again for all your input!

- Jeff

 

[Elliott Roper]

Hi John,

<snip>
jeff oh Jeff....
You are asking for the meaning of life, the universe and everything. [1]

The muppets in charge of Word have forgotten the basics of what the
customers want.

Attach to your .doc a .pdf and a letter of apology explaining that the
pdf was how it left you and the .doc is in case they want to edit it.

Is this a good situation? I could not possibly comment.

There are a number of tricks for lessening the impact of this
misfeature.

Someone will be along in a minute to explain.

 

[Beth Rosengard]

Hi Jeff,

Here's yet another suggestion . Download Clive Huggan's "Bend Word to
Your Will": <http://word.mvps.org/MacWordNew/Bend/BendWord.htm>.

Start with Appendix A: "The main ³minimum maintenance² features of my
documents".

--
***Please always reply to the newsgroup!***

Beth Rosengard
Mac MVP

Mac Word FAQ: <http://word.mvps.org/MacWordNew/index.htm>
Entourage Help Page: <http://www.entourage.mvps.org>

 

[Elliott Roper]

Hi Jeff,

Here's yet another suggestion . Download Clive Huggan's "Bend Word to
Your Will": <http://word.mvps.org/MacWordNew/Bend/BendWord.htm>.

Start with Appendix A: "The main ³minimum maintenance² features of my
documents".

Jeff. When I said "someone would be along in a minute", it was Beth and
Clive I had in mind.
Doofus and all as Word can be, pay close attention to these two.

It is not only possible to keep your page layout 'similar' from machine
to machine, but also to keep it 'logical' over machines and over time.

Word has to strike a delicate balance. Most of the time it errs on
deferring pagination, but you can see it makes some kind of sense if
sun is behind it.

 

[Paul Berkowitz]

So the trick is, how can you make Word behave as closely as
possible to a simple layout type program when you have no control
over the destination environment.

Send a PDF.

--
Paul Berkowitz
MVP MacOffice
Entourage FAQ Page: <http://www.entourage.mvps.org/faq/index.html>
AppleScripts for Entourage: <http://macscripter.net/scriptbuilders/>

Please "Reply To Newsgroup" to reply to this message. Emails will be
ignored.

PLEASE always state which version of Microsoft Office you are using -
**2004**, X or 2001. It's often impossible to answer your questions
otherwise.

 

[Jeff Wiseman]

jeff oh Jeff....
You are asking for the meaning of life, the universe and everything. [1]

I used to know that one. Wasn't it 57?

The muppets in charge of Word have forgotten the basics of what the
customers want.

Partly. It's also the business managers and other execs who don't
have to worry about their PCs breaking because they have an
entire IT organization at their call to fix it when it does. As a
result, huge organizations must all be forced to use those same
tools simply because they are the only ones that their managers
know, and those manager aren't about to change THEIR habits. I've
worked in so many organizations where every engineer had a UNIX
workstation on their desk to do all of their work on but ALSO had
a PC in their cubicle for the soul purpose of reading the notices
sent out by their manager who refused to learn a new application
or two.

Attach to your .doc a .pdf and a letter of apology explaining that the
pdf was how it left you and the .doc is in case they want to edit it.

Good ideas. Actually, I do this a lot. I also attach the .pdf
prior to the .doc so it is the first in an email to typically be
seen, especially if the person has view attachments inline turned on.

Is this a good situation? I could not possibly comment.

Boy, *I* could, and it ain't

There are a number of tricks for lessening the impact of this
misfeature.

That is exactly what I'm trying to glean from all those helpful
folks in this forum.

- Jeff