On 28-2-2012 19:08, Honza Hejzl wrote:

...

Check the yellow pages for a printing house that does not demand that. :-)

Best Martin

I am sorry, but that is absolutely typical demand, I have never seen at least one printing house which does not demand that... (And this is not a solution! :o))

Eh .. you mean that most printing houses demand *full* inclusion?

PDF file must be version *1.3*

Hm ... reminds me of printing houses that convert the pdf to ps and use quark for imposition, don't want to update acrobat for a few hundred euro but expect their customers to invest a lot in them. I'm curious what Luigi thinks of this (as he works at a lerge printing house).

Embed the typeface in the document along with the image data. Avoid using OPI commentaries! The typefaces used may be of the following standards: * Type1*, *TrueType*, *and Opentype*. As a matter of principle, the data is provided as a composite (not separated). Formats other than PDF are accepted only after prior agreement.

I wonder what they mean with 'standards' ... take openstype: only some splines are included and some width information. So, say that they want zapfino to be fully included: they get megabytes of shapes, completely unorganized (apart from maybe the fact that one can tell what unicode or sequence of unicode it is). No feature data, no kerning, etc. So, this demand for 'full embedding' to me more sounds like weird.

The PDF provided file should especially not contain any kind of meta-information, hypertext link, etc.

that's easy, although even a version 1.3 *only* viewer (if you can still find one) is supposed to ignore annotations it does not know [i could imagine no objects streams but one can easilly convert a 1.X file into a 1.y file using acrobat]

Everyone in printing industry *knows* what does it mean "to embed fonts", it is similar like when somebody wants pdf x-1a file (in printing industry the standard).

sure, but I'm not so sure if everyone expects one to embed all that unused information (btw, so far we never had to provide a specific pdf/x version so there are printing houses that are flexible enough to deal with it)

I am not a programmer, I don't know what does it mean in a code point of view. Trust me, embedding of fonts is the standard ("if you are not able to provide us the file as we need, your client should find another typesetter" - who typesets in InDesign). InDesign subsets typically just fonts used for texts where is not used 100 % of alphabet (pdf export settings).

it depends ... - a typesetter produces a file - in some kind of valid pdf - that than can be converted by whoever gets that file a printer might decide to drop features (because he cannot print it) or the publisher's prepress department can decide to downsample or convert to gray or ... in your case the printing house does not like what indesign does by default, but often it's indesign that sets the standard of what to expect so it all depends ... everyone in the publishing chain who claims that 'this or that is the standard' is of course right in its own perception anyway ... in your case you can say: \setupbackend[format=PDF/X-1a:2001] and get 1.3 (unless of course features are used cq. images included that demand otherwise) and you can best also say \nopdfcompression just to be sure that the printing house cannot complain about compression and then there is \enabledirectives[fonts.embedall] but that doesn't work unless you add line 205 in font-con.lua: tfmdata.embedding = embedding (I'll add that line in the next beta) which will embed a font (but of course still quite validly use a subset vector). Graphics and other resources are completely out of context/luatex's scope as are all kind of other aspects, Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------