All your points are good, but I clain the "fix" is still an improvement, and for that reason I am leaving it in there. Perhaps I am naive, but if someone gives me an environment in which there are multiple, and distinctly different, fonts, with the same /FontName, I claim all bets are off. I have encountered this before and it's not a good situation. At this time I simply don't have a solution for a case like this. On the other hand, I do agree that it is better to rename the TeX fonts if we will partially subset them. I believe we should do this (assuming technically we can make it work; I do not know that we cannot, nor do I know of specific issues, but I would not be surprised if this breaks something). Of course there are legal issues with renaming a font too, most likely. :-) This is something to consider for the next release (not only of dvips but also of pdftex, I believe). But I believe this is a substantial change to a piece of code that I am simply not familiar enough with to mess with. I do know that I have had in the past substantial problems with just changing the UniqueID of the font; different interpreters were very unhappy with some of the changes I made and I had to back them out. But that's just a technical issue. On the legal issue: I agree a warning may be appropriate whenever a font is included in its entirety. Right now dvips turns a deaf ear to these issues, but it is perhaps time for it to support at the very least a warning message. Another alternative is to run all included graphics through a companion interpreter that's been configured to only collect information on what characters and what fonts are used (probably by redefining show and a few other operators). But this is another substantial undertaking. Just so we are very clear: is it your position that this change that was made should be reversed? Or improved before the next release? Both of these positions would be troublesome for me. If it's just a question of, here's some additional issues to consider and let's try to get a solution to them as quickly as possible, I could not agree more. I must say that I've had no indication that the problems you mention are severe (i.e., causing problems for people), but perhaps that is because I don't follow most of the TeX groups. I believe this is a discussion that we should have as part of a larger group, so I am happy to have gotten your note, and I hope our collected wisdom on these groups will steer us all in the appropriate direction. But for now I've got to get a point release out the door. -tom