Font Book Won't Recognize New Fonts

I don't know, maybe Dr.Smokes Font Book help will.

Cheers!
DALE

Try dragging the fonts to the "all fonts" folder. That works for me. Then I do whatever I want with them.

Cheers
Radar

You probably know that Type1 fonts need two files: the printer file and the bitmap or truetype companion file.

What we could do in Systems7-9 was deal with font files that were single fonts or suitcases of multiple fonts. Single-font files could be bitmapped or TrueType; the former had a single A on the icon, the latter a triple AAA on it (hmm.. maybe that was a double AA). Anyway, a suitcase file had a suitcase icon, and doubleclicking on it showed you the TrueType and/or bitmapped font files inside it.

But OSX supports only suitcase files from previous systems, not those single-font files. The Font.mdimporter document is a single-file bitmap or TrueType font, and it can be used as the printer font companion under OSX.

What you (or someone) has to do is work under OS9 on another machine and put these fonts into suitcase files. If you have a Classic environment on your OSX system, you can't manipulate the fonts as if it were OS9 because it's only pretending to be OS9, it's not really OS9.

Perhaps your client thought s/he was being helpful and pulled those files out of suitcase files and can just sent you the suitcase files.

sharon

Well, you can manipulate suitcase files if you have a Classic folder on your Tiger machine by using the old Font/DA Mover, but I haven't found any way to make it (or anything else) handle those single-font files.

I am surprised to hear that this keeps popping up, however, because I would've thought single-font files were quite the exception and most things were stuffed in suitcases - if not in the user's own environment, at least when it was handed over to someone else. I mean, it takes effort to separate the MyFont Bold from MyFont Regular and MyFont Italic, etc - most families are in suitcases already.

I don't know what utility might handle this... sorry

Just had another thought; haven't tried this out, but you can <g>, if you have a Classic system on your machine. (I know you said you left 9 far behind, but I assume that means in terms of working in it; you might have put it on your machine for some reason or another)

Maybe these two facts together could work for you: the printer file and the companion screen font don't have to be in the same folder for them to see each other. A loose, non-suitcased, font file can be dragged into the Classic fonts folder and accessed by classic apps (another non-documented feature). Fonts in the Classic folder are accessed by OS X apps except for these single-font files... but maybe if they're related to printer font file in an OSX fonts folder....

But OSX supports only suitcase files from previous systems, not those single-font files.

Neither did OS 9 or earlier. Having only the printer outline portion of a Type 1 PostScript has never worked anywhere. You must have both the suitcase of bitmapped fonts and the corresponding outline fonts. They also must be in the same folder in order for them to work. Strangely, the Mac OS (and Windows) has always allowed you to open the bitmapped fonts without having the matching printer fonts. Dumb since you then get really crummy output on your printer, RIP or other device since you then only have the low res bitmapped images of the font to work with.

Here's an example of a Type 1 PostScript font:

Adobe Garamond
AGarBol
AGarBolIta
AGarIta
AGarReg
AGarSem
AGarSemIta

The file I highlighted in green is the bitmap suitcase containing all of the screen fonts for the correlating outline fonts, which are all of the individual files in black. AGarBol is Adobe Garamond Bold, followed by Bold Italic, Italic, Regular (Roman), Semibold and Semibold Italic.

So, as per your statement in the original post:

When viewing the font files in the Finder, the Kind on some of the files shows up as "Font.mdimporter Document" while others are "PostScript Type 1 outline font."

Your client only sent you the outline portion of the font. Rendering it useless without the matching screen font. The "Font.mdimporter Document" file has nothing to do with a Type 1 PS font, so is if no importance.

Also, some clarification from other posts above. There are indeed two different kinds of suitcase fonts, although they look identical. You do need a Mac booted into OS 9 in order to easily open them to look.

1) As noted by SharonZ, if the suitcase contains files with a single A on it, those are bitmap screen fonts related to a matching outline printer font.

2) If it has the letter A appearing to recede twice to the upper left corner, it is a Mac TrueType font which neither has, nor requires any type of matching file. TrueType fonts contain the screen and printer fonts in a single file. There really is no reason for any TrueType font to be contained in a suitcase file. That's only done to simplify things. Like putting the separate normal, bold and italic faces of a font in one file to keep them together in a single, easy to manage file. You'll note that PC TrueType fonts are all individual files that can be read by OS X, rather than being grouped in suitcases. But you can throw any TrueType font into a suitcase, which vendors of card making software often do. They'll supply what looks like one font, but really contains 30 or more different fonts of varying style.

Anyway, you need to get back to your client and have them send you the complete PostScript font before you'll get anywhere with it.

You are conflating two or three issues in your note, leading to some misleading info. And you missed some info earlier in the thread; the original post did not say he had only a single file for the font; he said the companion to the printer file was an unusable "mdimporter" type file.

That is the issue we're dealing with; that companion file is a *single-font file* (we're not talking about *single-file fonts*). You say that the mdimporter file has nothing to do with a Type 1 PS font, but it certainly does: it's the file type that OS X applies to single-font files, "loose" TrueType and Bitmap fonts in OS 9 and earlier. The poster's client sent them as the companion to the printer font, because on his/her machine, that's the screen font for the outline font.

The "single-font file" I referred to is a non-suitcased font file, TrueType or bitmapped. OS 7-9 could have these files (TrueType or bitmap) as standalone (one face) or in suitcases (multiple faces, one family, or even multiple families, and even a mix of TT and BM <yuck>).

Either file type - suitcase or single-font - could be the companion for a printer file in previous systems; in OSX, only the suitcase format is recognized.

You say "There really is no reason for any TrueType font to be contained in a suitcase file. That's only done to simplify things." This is not true. Under OSX only the suitcases are recognized, so that's a BIG reason to keep them in suitcase files. And, under earlier systems, things were suitcased not only for convenience but also to get around the 128-font file limit.

Tho slightly off topic, your comment re PC TT fonts as separate files needs clarification, too. Not sure exactly what you meant there, but I'm assuming you mean that you have separate files for each typeface: "ThisFont.ttf" and "ThisFont Bold.ttf" etc. This hold for many Mac TT files, too. But many Windows ttf files hold multiple faces as well - I have at least a dozen of them on my machine. In all likelihood, these are the more recent files, in OpenType specs. (and thank the font gods for that, because a separate file for every face?? My Warnock Pro alone has 21 faces....)

Anyway, if the original poster asks his client for the "complete" postscript font as you suggest, he's going to get what he got the first time: the outline font and the mdimporter file, because that is the complete postscript font on the client's machine.

And you missed some info earlier in the thread; the original post did not say he had only a single file for the font; he said the companion to the printer file was an unusable "mdimporter" type file.

No, I saw it. Since the importer file they sent him has nothing to do with his font, then he indeed has only one part of the part. A single file.

You say that the mdimporter file has nothing to do with a Type 1 PS font, but it certainly does: it's the file type that OS X applies to single-font files

Incorrect. That file type refers specifically to old bitmapped fonts which were built as, and consisted only of bitmap images of every point size you needed for a type face. They have nothing to do with the bitmap portion of a PostScript font. Although it's entirely possible that the font was "broken" when it was sent to Raymond and the OS is mislabeling it. In which case, it's still useless as it is no longer associated with the outline portion.

The "single-font file" I referred to is a non-suitcased font file, TrueType or bitmapped. OS 7-9 could have these files (TrueType or bitmap) as standalone (one face) or in suitcases (multiple faces, one family, or even multiple families, and even a mix of TT and BM

Again though, you are referring to bitmapped fonts, not bitmap screen fonts for a Type 1 PostScript font. HUGE difference.

This is not true. Under OSX only the suitcases are recognized

Specifically for a Mac TrueType font, yes. But only because they were designed that way. Those must be in a suitcase in order for the OS to understand them. But OS X can also read single TrueType fonts from Windows systems just as easily. Those are not in a suitcase, but work anyway.

needs clarification, too. Not sure exactly what you meant there, but I'm assuming you mean that you have separate files for each typeface

If you're not sure what I meant, how can you possibly clarify it? But yes, you must have both (or multiple) parts for a Type 1 PostScript font. TrueType is another animal altogether.

But many Windows ttf files hold multiple faces as well - I have at least a dozen of them on my machine.

Didn't say they didn't, although I didn't mention it either. They're difficult to pick out on a Windows machine since they both (idiotically) have the same .ttf extension. One meaning True Type Font, and the other True Type Family. But most True Type fonts on PCs are a single type face.

To you both, I'll try to clarify a few things:

We're talking about 3 different things here:

1) Font Suitcase: a file with a file type of 'FFIL' and creator code of 'DMOV'. It acts as container file to hold Bitmap fonts (single A in OS 9) and/or TrueType fonts (triple A in OS 9).

2) Bitmap font: a file with a file type of 'ffil' and creator code of 'DMOV'. In OS 9, this file would have a single A icon. Internally, this font contains a 'FOND' (Font Family) resource which contains general information about the font family the font belongs to, and an 'NFNT' (New FONT) resource, which contains information about the particular font face, including the bit image of the glyphs in the font.

3) TrueType font: a file with a file type of 'tfil' and a creator code of 'DMOV'. In OS 9, this file would have a triple A icon. Internally, this font contains a 'FOND' (Font Family) resource which contains general information about the font family the font belongs to, just as it does in a Bitmap font. A TrueType font differs in that the second resource type it contains is an 'sfnt' (Spline font?) resource, which contains the vector information of the font outlines. Since this resource is contained within the same file, there is no need for an external secondary file as there is with PostScript Type 1 fonts.

Ordinarily in OS X, you don't usually see either Bitmap fonts or TrueType fonts, as they're usually contained within a "Font Suitcase".

I will have to do some further research, but I think these "loose" Bitmap fonts and TrueType fonts should be usable in some manner, provided the Bitmap font is accompanied by the corresponding outline fonts. The reason I say that is that, internally, there is actually very little difference between a single bitmap font that is loose and one that is inside a Font Suitcase. In both cases, you simply have a file that contains a 'FOND' resource and an 'NFNT' resource. The only real difference is that the files have a different file type ('ffil' vs. 'FFIL'). There might be a difference when there are a combination of bitmap fonts in a font suitcase (not of different sizes, but of different styles). What I mean is, I'm not sure how OS X would treat having "Helvetica 10", "Helvetica Bold 10", "Helvetica Oblique 10", and "Helvetica Bold Oblique 10" as loose files vs. having them in a single suitcase.

Anyway, this brings us to the issue about the "Font.mdimporter Document". Kurt, this is probably where not having Tiger will effect the way you interpret what this document is. I'm pretty sure that loose Bitmap fonts and/or loose TrueType fonts (with the file type and creator codes I mentioned earlier) might be referred to as "Font.mdimporter Documents". That's because there is no other application on the system that "claims" those combinations of file types and creator codes. Font Book doesn't, but the /System/Library/Spotlight/Font.mdimporter Spotlight importer does claim some information about these fonts.

The CoreTypes.bundle ("/System/Library/CoreServices/CoreTypes.bundle/Contents/Info.plist") declares all three items I mentioned above to be mapped to the same Uniform Type Indicator (UTI) of "com.apple.font-suitcase" See System-Declared Uniform Type Identifiers.

I will have to double check on another Mac, as on mine (which has the beta of Font Finagler with the font suitcase editing feature on it, which claims the document types of Font Suitcase, Bitmap font, and TrueType font), the items are treated as above and are referred to as Font Suitcase, Bitmap font, and TrueType font.

Anyway, I hope that makes some sense.

"Incorrect. That file type refers specifically to old bitmapped fonts which were built as, and consisted only of bitmap images of every point size you needed for a type face. They have nothing to do with the bitmap portion of a PostScript font. Although it's entirely possible that the font was "broken" when it was sent to Raymond and the OS is mislabeling it. In which case, it's still useless as it is no longer associated with the outline portion."

I'm trying to understand what you're saying here, but it seems like you're trying to distinguish between two types of "bitmap fonts"?

Some of this might go back to before my time, since I was still in High School and didn't know anything about Macs, but maybe by "older bitmap fonts" you're referring to the old 'FONT' resource that was used in fonts before Apple switched to the PowerPC chip (around 1992?). Originally, fonts contained only a single resource type, the aptly named 'FONT'. Then, around 1992 or so, Apple needed to create a newer, more flexible format for fonts, and so they created the New FONT resource type, or 'NFNT'. In addition to that resource they created the 'FOND' resource type, which was the Font Family resource and contained information about the font as a whole. The structure of the 'NFNT' resource is actually the same as the original 'FONT' resource type. In other words, it contains the bitmap images of the glyphs of the font face as does the older 'FONT' resource type.

Without taking a look at the file in a resource editor, It's hard to say whether that "Font.mdimporter Document" could be the older, unsupported type of file with only a 'FONT' resource type, or whether it could be what you're referring to as a PostScript Type 1 bitmap font suitcase, which would contain a 'FOND' resource type and an 'NFNT' resource type. Actually, we've established that it's not a font suitcase, but that it could be either the older type of "bitmap font" or a newer type of "bitmap font" which you would normally find within the font suitcase for a PostScript Type 1 font.

Anyway, hope this helps....

This is turning into an argument instead of an information exchange. But, here goes:

The crux of the disagreement is the mdimporter type file. Have you looked at various font files in OS 9 and brought them forward to OSX? Truetypes and bitmaps that are in suitcases are recognized and labeled as such. “Loose” fonts, not in suitcases, whether TrueType or a lonesome bitmap of one face/size, come forward to be typed as mdimporter files. When a suitcase file is paired w/Type 1 outline font in the older system and sent to X, there’s no problem. If a user pairs the Type 1 w/a “loose” font, it still works under OS9, but not under OSX, which doesn’t grok the single-font-not-suitcase format and identifies it as mdimporter.

“Since the importer file they sent him has nothing to do with his font, then he indeed has only one part of the part. A single file”

He indeed has only a single file towards what he needs; but the sender sent the two files that worked for her under an earlier OS. The mdimporter file won’t help under OSX, but saying it “has nothing to do with” the font implies the sender merely sent the wrong file, rather than a file not recognized by the later OS.

“Incorrect. That file type [mdimporter] refers specifically to old bitmapped fonts which… consisted only of bitmap images of every point size … nothing to do with the bitmap portion of a PostScript font… possible that the font was "broken" when it was sent to Raymond and the OS is mislabeling it. In which case, it's still useless as it is no longer associated with the outline portion. “

But that is not what OSX types as mdimporter. You are describing a bitmapped font suitcase. They were often used as the companion to a printer font, so I’m not sure why you say they have nothing to do with outline fonts. Suitcase files are handled w/o problems in X. But there doesn’t have to be anything “broken” in the files Raymond got; there’s no mislabeling. OSX won’t play with unsuitcased fonts, and it calls them mdimporter documents, apparently for lack of any better identifier.

“Again though, you are referring to bitmapped fonts, not bitmap screen fonts for a Type 1 PostScript font. HUGE difference. “

I don’t understand the differentiation you’re making. Just that some bitmapped fonts were fonts unto themselves, and others were meant as outline font companions? The file types, and management under earlier OS’s were the same. I don’t know what HUGE difference you’re talking about.

[Under OSX only the suitcases are recognized] “Specifically for a Mac TrueType font, yes. But only because they were designed that way. Those must be in a suitcase in order for the OS to understand them. But OS X can also read single TrueType fonts from Windows systems just as easily. Those are not in a suitcase, but work anyway. “

Well, yes, but if I said or implied anything to the contrary, it was inadvertent. OSX reads .ttf files, of course; I think I was trying to point out that they were the equivalent of suitcase files in that the single file can hold all the faces. OS 9 didn't need its fonts in a suitcase in order for them to be used. Unfortunately, it also let bitmapped, truetype, and all sorts of faces and families get stuffed into the same file, which people did in order to circumvent the font file limitation; it's biting them now when they move those suitcases to X.

[needs clarification, too. Not sure exactly what you meant there, but I'm assuming you mean that you have separate files for each typeface]
"If you're not sure what I meant, how can you possibly clarify it? But yes, you must have both (or multiple) parts for a Type 1 PostScript font. TrueType is another animal altogether. "

You sound unnecessarily riled or rude here. (“If you're not sure what I meant, how can you possibly clarify it?”) When I say I’m not sure what you meant, sometimes it means I don’t get it, and sometimes it’s a polite way of saying you weren’t clear. I went on to state my assumption

All your notes are perfectly correct.

But I think the problem (re X using "loose" font file) is that the whole issue of filetypes and creators are phasing out?

I have "tricked" the OS into using those mdimporter files: you can put it directly into the Classic folder if you have one (even dragging it thru FontBook, which won't acknowledge it if you doubleclick it). They're certainly available in Classic apps (no big win there!), and they occasionally show up in Word's menu - I haven't figured out what causes their intermittant attendance.

And, as you mentioned, I suspect there might be a way to force the OS to see them to work w/Type 1 font; haven't had a chance to play with that yet.

BTW, Multiple Masters that "aren't supported" (except for previously created instances): They work w/Adobe apps if you put them in the Adobe fonts folder <g>. I've spent the last week or so doing the stuff we've been told won't work.

I seem to have the same problem and have been searching for an answer, but the posts are confusing the issue (not being rude)

I have just up-graded to 10.4 and had currently been using 9.2. I have a massive collection of fonts and have not yet loaded all into font book (but now I am worried). I have a spec sheet that uses 'Eurostyle Extended' and have been using it for years, now in 10.4 it will not recognise any of that font collection (it is greyed out?) I have a mac at home running 10.3 and this font works fine??????
Any suggestions.