6 ms·

This is the same as saying "we are removing your ability to look at jpg, use heic instead". T1 is a perfectly fine file format with many quality fonts. It does

This is the same as saying "we are removing your ability to look at jpg, use heic instead". T1 is a perfectly fine file format with many quality fonts. It does not burden a system to have it. Support is not lost on Linux systems which use the freetype renderer.

pilif 4y ago
> It does not burden a system to have it. any file format you support poses a significant attack surface, especially an old and creaky one whose parser you've written in the 90ies and ever touched.
- hulitu 4y ago
  > any file format you support poses a significant attack surface, and yet the trend is to use more and more libraries, sometimes from dubious sources and sometimes (hello npm) with malware.
scrollaway 4y ago
Actually it’s the same as “removing support for XBM because nobody uses it anymore”. Would you not make completely out of scale comparisons just to be contrarian on HN? Please?
- hedora 4y ago
  How many xbm files were used to store archival copies of documents? Adobe Reader has always been terrible; I’ll happily continue to avoid Adobe software whenever possible. However, I hope this doesn’t lead to other PDF software ending support for Type 1 fonts.
maxnoe 4y ago
This is about removing support from applications creating PDF files (InDesign, Acrobat, ...). From the article: > Keep in mind that older PDFs created with Type 1 fonts are safe—as long as their font data was embedded in the PDF when it was made. PDF readers, whether from Adobe or elsewhere, will continue to render these documents as they always have.
- hulitu 4y ago
  > are safe—as long as This does not sound like "safe" to me.
  - mananaysiempre 4y ago
    And a fair number of old Adobe, Apple, and BeOS technical docs lack embedded fonts for some reason.
    - RobotToaster 4y ago
      Back then it could have been due to file size?
      - mananaysiempre 4y ago
        Coupled with the lack of builtin compression in contemporary PDF versions (and a strange but widespread aversion to gzipped pdf), perhaps, but then there shouldn’t be anything special about those particular companies. Maybe there isn’t, though, maybe that’s just where I come across mid-to-late-90s PDFs.
    - crazygringo 4y ago
      Can you send a link to an example? Which fonts were they using that weren't embedded? Never in my life have I come across a PDF intended for public distribution missing an embedded font. (The sole exception being the PDF standard fonts like Times New Roman that are never embedded.)
      - mananaysiempre 4y ago
        I remember an Adobe presentation[1] tried to walk back the "14 standard fonts" thing as being an Acrobat "convenience" feature rather than a PDF standard feature, probably because it doesn't look good to attempt to standardize a (format unimplementable without a) set of fonts you're unwilling or unable to let people freely redistribute. (But then that presentation also promised the nascent ISO PDF standard would always stay accessible free of charge, and we know how that turned out.) Certainly PDF/A does not permit you to omit them, though that's only one specific kind of PDF. In any case, sure, here you go: - The Be Book[2] for DR8 uses but does not embed AvantGarde-* fonts. - Inside Macintosh: Interapplication Communication[3] uses but does not embed Palatino-* fonts (for this one I could be convinced it's because the uploader merged the original per-chapter PDFs[4] incorrectly, though). - The Mac OS 8 Human Interface Guidelines[5] also have the Palatino problem (and look legit, even though other Apple HIGs from that era do embed their fonts). - Even the bloody spec[6] for PDF 1.3 uses and does not embed Caecilia-Heavy and MyriadMM_565_600_, whatever those are. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poc9PVmFzpc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poc9PVmFzpc [2] http://bebits.irixnet.org/be/docs/DR8/BeBook/acrobat/05_MediaKit.pdf http://bebits.irixnet.org/be/docs/DR8/BeBook/acrobat/05_Medi... and others in that directory (1996 metadata) [3] https://vintageapple.org/inside_r/pdf/Interapplication_Comm_1993.pdf https://vintageapple.org/inside_r/pdf/Interapplication_Comm_... (1993 copyright, 2014 metadata) [4] https://thrysoee.dk/InsideMacintoshInterapplicationCommunication/ https://thrysoee.dk/InsideMacintoshInterapplicationCommunica... [5] http://interface.free.fr/Archives/Apple_HIGOS8_Guidelines.pdf http://interface.free.fr/Archives/Apple_HIGOS8_Guidelines.pd... (1997 metadata) [6] https://web.archive.org/web/20101214132912/http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/pdf/PDFReference13.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20101214132912/http://partners.a... (2000 metadata)
madeofpalk 4y ago
> It does not burden a system to have it. Any and all software is a burden.
- legulere 4y ago
  There’s no code better than no code.
- eternityforest 4y ago
  Some is a negligible burden, or a net unburdening because it replaces something else that was a bigger problem
shp0ngle 4y ago
Any old code is burden by definition. You can still use old versions of Adobe software. (I… guess? I am not sure how do the Adobe Creative Cloud licensing shenanigans work nowadays, I haven’t used Adobe suite for ages)

pilif 4y ago

> It does not burden a system to have it. any file format you support poses a significant attack surface, especially an old and creaky one whose parser you've written in the 90ies and ever touched.

hulitu 4y ago
> any file format you support poses a significant attack surface, and yet the trend is to use more and more libraries, sometimes from dubious sources and sometimes (hello npm) with malware.

scrollaway 4y ago

Actually it’s the same as “removing support for XBM because nobody uses it anymore”. Would you not make completely out of scale comparisons just to be contrarian on HN? Please?

hedora 4y ago
How many xbm files were used to store archival copies of documents? Adobe Reader has always been terrible; I’ll happily continue to avoid Adobe software whenever possible. However, I hope this doesn’t lead to other PDF software ending support for Type 1 fonts.

maxnoe 4y ago

This is about removing support from applications creating PDF files (InDesign, Acrobat, ...). From the article: > Keep in mind that older PDFs created with Type 1 fonts are safe—as long as their font data was embedded in the PDF when it was made. PDF readers, whether from Adobe or elsewhere, will continue to render these documents as they always have.

hulitu 4y ago
> are safe—as long as This does not sound like "safe" to me.
- mananaysiempre 4y ago
  And a fair number of old Adobe, Apple, and BeOS technical docs lack embedded fonts for some reason.
  - RobotToaster 4y ago
    Back then it could have been due to file size?
    - mananaysiempre 4y ago
      Coupled with the lack of builtin compression in contemporary PDF versions (and a strange but widespread aversion to gzipped pdf), perhaps, but then there shouldn’t be anything special about those particular companies. Maybe there isn’t, though, maybe that’s just where I come across mid-to-late-90s PDFs.
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    Can you send a link to an example? Which fonts were they using that weren't embedded? Never in my life have I come across a PDF intended for public distribution missing an embedded font. (The sole exception being the PDF standard fonts like Times New Roman that are never embedded.)
    - mananaysiempre 4y ago
      I remember an Adobe presentation[1] tried to walk back the "14 standard fonts" thing as being an Acrobat "convenience" feature rather than a PDF standard feature, probably because it doesn't look good to attempt to standardize a (format unimplementable without a) set of fonts you're unwilling or unable to let people freely redistribute. (But then that presentation also promised the nascent ISO PDF standard would always stay accessible free of charge, and we know how that turned out.) Certainly PDF/A does not permit you to omit them, though that's only one specific kind of PDF. In any case, sure, here you go: - The Be Book[2] for DR8 uses but does not embed AvantGarde-* fonts. - Inside Macintosh: Interapplication Communication[3] uses but does not embed Palatino-* fonts (for this one I could be convinced it's because the uploader merged the original per-chapter PDFs[4] incorrectly, though). - The Mac OS 8 Human Interface Guidelines[5] also have the Palatino problem (and look legit, even though other Apple HIGs from that era do embed their fonts). - Even the bloody spec[6] for PDF 1.3 uses and does not embed Caecilia-Heavy and MyriadMM_565_600_, whatever those are. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poc9PVmFzpc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poc9PVmFzpc [2] http://bebits.irixnet.org/be/docs/DR8/BeBook/acrobat/05_MediaKit.pdf http://bebits.irixnet.org/be/docs/DR8/BeBook/acrobat/05_Medi... and others in that directory (1996 metadata) [3] https://vintageapple.org/inside_r/pdf/Interapplication_Comm_1993.pdf https://vintageapple.org/inside_r/pdf/Interapplication_Comm_... (1993 copyright, 2014 metadata) [4] https://thrysoee.dk/InsideMacintoshInterapplicationCommunication/ https://thrysoee.dk/InsideMacintoshInterapplicationCommunica... [5] http://interface.free.fr/Archives/Apple_HIGOS8_Guidelines.pdf http://interface.free.fr/Archives/Apple_HIGOS8_Guidelines.pd... (1997 metadata) [6] https://web.archive.org/web/20101214132912/http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/pdf/PDFReference13.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20101214132912/http://partners.a... (2000 metadata)

madeofpalk 4y ago

> It does not burden a system to have it. Any and all software is a burden.

legulere 4y ago
There’s no code better than no code.
eternityforest 4y ago
Some is a negligible burden, or a net unburdening because it replaces something else that was a bigger problem

shp0ngle 4y ago

Any old code is burden by definition. You can still use old versions of Adobe software. (I… guess? I am not sure how do the Adobe Creative Cloud licensing shenanigans work nowadays, I haven’t used Adobe suite for ages)