First, let me say that the font is beautiful, and you've done a tremendous job.

However, I'm having a hard time using it with XeLaTeX. (I'm using version 2.1 of the fonts with XeTeX 3.1415926-2.2-0.9995.2, TeX Live 2009, mainly on Ubuntu Karmic.). Actually, it seems to work fine, and the output looks good in poppler-based PDF viewers like evince and TeXworks's internal viewer. It also looks fine on PDF X-Change viwewer on Windows. But in Adobe-based PDF viewers (--I've tried both Acrobat Reader for linux, and Adobe Digitial Editions for Windows--), the characters appear the wrong size and overlap each other.

The attached screenshots show the output for the following minimal XeLaTeX file: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% beginning of file %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \documentclass[12pt]{article} \usepackage{lipsum} \usepackage{fontspec} \defaultfontfeatures{Mapping=tex-text} \usepackage{xunicode} \usepackage{xltxtra}

\setmainfont{OFL Sorts Mill Goudy} \begin{document} \lipsum[1] \end{document} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% end of file %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% I'm also attaching the resulting test.pdf.

Funny thing, if I print from evince to a file (using cairo 1.8.8), the resulting PDF created that way works well in both evince and in Acrobat Reader. I'd just do this, but it means I lose any internal hyperlinks created through LaTeX's hyperref package, not to mention metadata, etc.

I would be tempted to think this is a problem with Adobe's PDF viewing software, but then again, I don't get this problem with other fonts. And unfortunately, the font is relatively useless to me if I can't use it with Adobe PDF software, since after all, most people use their software to view PDFs.

The problem seems to occur with both licensed (SIL/MIT) versions of the font.

What steps will reproduce the problem? 1. 2. 3.

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?

Please provide any additional information below.

Sorry I need to attach the other files.

Yeah, luatex would do the same thing, though maybe it has been fixed. They thought it was due to a bug in acroread, but my opinion was that they may have misinterpreted the PDF spec and embedded the font incorrectly. With my own stuff (http://kompostilo.googlecode.com) the fonts work fine.

It's because I used as a basic unit of measurement 1/2048 of an em, which is allowed and which I found convenient. The usual unit for "PostScript-flavored" fonts is 1/1000 of an em, although 1/2048 may also occur if the font was designed primarily for TrueType. Meanwhile, in the PDF spec, in some places you are supposed to use 1/1000 units no matter what, and where you are supposed to leave it in the actual units, they don't say so, and thus programmers assume the 1/1000 units there also, I believe incorrectly. So some numbers are off by a factor of 2.048.

The good news is that I decided to convert the fonts to 1/1000, and I'm about halfway through, but have been working mostly on other things (related to kompostilo, mentioned above). The main reason for the re-scaling is that I noticed even acroread 9 has minor troubles with 1/2048 and the select tool, even though both PDF and PostScript-flavored fonts are their own designs. I was thinking of finishing the new fonts soon.

Many thanks for the explanation. It is appreciated.

I do hope you get around to finishing the changes. It's a great font, and it would be great to be able to use it more. (Even better with a true bold to go along with it... wink, wink.)

Bold is overused IMO, and, besides, the regular and the italic are the only ones that actually were designed by Goudy. :) The bold and some other related typefaces were designed by Morris Fuller Benton, in house at ATF.

I may do the bold one day, but I don't work at a productive rate, due to disabilities.

If you want to try it here's the roman attached. When I said half done, it was because I had done the roman and not yet the italic.

Yes, that works perfectly in both evince and Adobe Reader. Excellent!

Obviously, I'd be thrilled if you could find time to do the italic. I definitely understand you're busy, and the work takes time, and you shouldn't apologize for it. Anyone willing to put hard work into a project like this, and then give away the results, deserves all the time in the world.

What you say about the origins of the Bold sounds like an excuse to try designing your own, if you're so inclined. You may be right that Bold is overused, but it's nice to have it available. I tried the "FakeBold" option offered by XeLaTeX, but wasn't blown away by the result.

Morris Benton was a great designer in his own right; his bold is just fine, probably better than Goudy's would have been. :)

I want to express my gratitude too for this great font and for all your effort you put in its development. I'm delighted to see that it supports characters used often in East/South European languages (e.g. č, ć, đ). And if you decide to add the bold too, that would be great.

Since it's just the italic you might find it adequate to use this snapshot: http:// home.comcast.net/~crudfactory/GoudyStM-Italic.work-in-progress.otf

The main potential problems would be an occasional outline that got broken during the scaling process (this happened with the serif of the P but I've fixed it) and bad hinting -- not as big a problem with italic as with roman, and it's autohinted already.

I got started making fonts by adding letters for Esperanto to existing fonts, although they aren’t particularly challenging to make, as long as there already are circumflex and breve. I don’t like making circumflexes and like making breves even less.

That looks very promising, thanks so much. I compile two documents, one using this new version, and one using the OFL version from the League of Moveable Type site, and couldn't tell a difference between them under evince, though I only had time to do a cursory look. (And there was all the difference--in the good way--under acroread.)

I have a .ttf version of Goudy Old Style Bold BT I can use if I need a bold, but it's a big disappointment compared to your versions: I don't even get common ligatures, or old style numerals, etc. (I wasn't complaining about its overall look before: just suggesting an alternative if there's any problems with duplicating Benton's design.) But I think I'll shy away from bold for the moment.

Thanks again for all your hard work. It is appreciated.

Try version 3.0, just uploaded.

The new version works great! Thanks. Feel free to close this issue.

P.S. I recently had a compare to compare yours with "Goudy Oldstyle Std" distributed by Adobe. I find I like yours letter. Partly because it includes the ff/ffi/ffl ligatures, which that didn't, but also in other minute aesthetic ways which are hard to put into words. Great job.

Thanks.

I go for a more heavy and lower contrast look, which to my taste comes out well in on-screen reading, particularly with Adobe Reader and an LCD display. Also, I would guess that Adobe's digitization has changed little since the 1980s and was designed to work well on, for instance, 300-dpi laser printers with limited memory. Something more like mine might be the Lanston version: http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/lanston/ ltc-goudy-oldstyle/ (They added long-descender versions of the glyphs, too, but I don't think were ever long descenders for metal versions.)