Corentin - thanks!
>
> The MS version is indeed more advanced. Apple updated all these fonts in
> Snow Leopard so in 10.6, the opposite is usually true (keep the Apple
> version, dump the MS one).
sorry, but I'm not sure I understand. What specifically do you mean by "more advanced"? If you mean "more recent", then I don't see how that's correct, at least speaking of 10.5.8.
Some data for 10.5.8:
Apple's TNR (/Library/Fonts/Times New Roman.ttf):
Format: TrueType data fork
Glyphs: 3380
Kerning pairs: plenty, couldn't count
Version: 5.01 (copyright year 2006)
Word kerning works: no
Microsoft's TNR (/Library/Fonts/Microsoft/Times New Roman):
Format: TrueType resource-fork suitcase
Glyphs: 1320
Kerning pairs: plenty, couldn't count
Version: 3.05 (copyright year 1992)
Word kerning works: yes
Note that both fonts have plenty of kerning pairs. Consequently, Apple's text system, e.g. in TextEdit, kerns both versions just fine.
>
> I'm not so sure. The Apple version is far more complete than the MS one
> and I believe that's the reason why you are seeing kerning issues.
what exactly do you mean by "more complete"? More glyphs or kerning pairs? Do you have evidence for your belief that "completeness" is to blame? Do you think "more complete" = Word doesn't kern or vice versa? I have checked multiple fonts now, and the only commonality I could find was that data-fork TT fonts didn't get kerned in Word, regardless of whether they were supplied by Apple or Microsoft. Resource-fork TT fonts always got kerned fine except for Georgia, which doesn't come with kerning pairs to begin with.
[...]
> > Question to Corentin and others: is my diagnosis correct? If yes, is
> > this a known issue? Is it documented somewhere?
>
> To my knowledge, you would be the first one reporting this.
> I haven't checked myself, but I suspect it more related to the character
> set provided in the font itself than a format issue.
The fact is that MS provided a very complete font set for certain fonts
> like TNF when Apple provided a more rudimentary one.
When by "complete font set" you mean number of glyphs, then I think that this statement is not correct for TNR on 10.5.8, see above. However, I don't think the discussion about "completeness" leads us any further. Regardless of the root cause, the fact is that MS Word doesn't kern a large number of important fonts unless you operate on your system font installation. That's a software bug in Word as far as I can tell. For some Microsoft-supplied fonts such as Cambria, the new Office default serif font, or Perpetua, it's even outright impossible to get Word to kern. My suspicion is still that it's connected to the font file format, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
In any case, I'd appreciate if you, Corentin, or some other MVP could try to reproduce the issue and, if positive, possibly liaison with your contacts Microsoft to check whether they're aware of it. Thanks again for your effort.
Best regards,
maurits