Embedding .symbol font?

[troymc]

Originally Posted by Hitch

My take on that is, if it changes down the road (the standard, for whatever reason), great, change the accursed things then. For the time being, like Occam's Razor, the simplest answer is usually the right one. Embedding symbol fonts for something that can be accomplished with plain old vanilla html is, I think, just over-the-top. PLUS, you don't have the pesky 1.05 epub validation thing to worry over, at least about this.

Good luck!

While I agree with your statement in principle, Kivgaen appears to being do this as a publisher. And as a publisher Occam's Razor is usually on the side of doing things correctly the first time and not having to waste time & manpower going back in a couple of years to search through their entire catalog to find and correct things.

But it is a tradeoff they have balance. Maybe getting the product out the door quickly now is worth the costs involved in possibly having to go back and fix things in the future. Keep in mind reputation is a cost too. Will you be known for putting out top-quality ebooks? or for pushing stuff that only works on iPads? or Kindles? and work poorly, if at all on other devices?

That being said, the four symbols mentioned are extremely basic and I would expect them to be in any unicode font deserving of the name. But if there's any risk - embedding a font is trivial.


Troy

[Kivgaen]

Originally Posted by Valloric

That doesn't do what you think it does. An HTML character reference is merely a convenient way of specifying the use of a character that is not easily written using ASCII alone. Basically, aside from comfort and user preference, there is no difference in using a character reference instead of a "real" UTF-8 character.

You still need a font with the required glyph to render a non-ASCII char.

There is no "HTML" font.

I think what he's saying is that all of the readers out there that we care about (sony, iPad, kindle, etc.) have a font that can render the spade, heart, club and diamond symbols (or trademark, copyright, etc.). So we're pretty safe there -- most of them already have a default font native to the device that will display these characters. And their "font substitution" algorithm actually works properly

So for the time being, we don't lose anything by not embedding the fonts.

[Valloric]

Originally Posted by Kivgaen

I think what he's saying is that all of the readers out there that we care about (sony, iPad, kindle, etc.) have a font that can render the spade, heart, club and diamond symbols (or trademark, copyright, etc.). So we're pretty safe there -- most of them already have a default font native to the device that will display these characters. And their "font substitution" algorithm actually works properly

So for the time being, we don't lose anything by not embedding the fonts.

This is quite probably true, and I was just about to say something similar. If you're only looking for those four symbols, then you don't really have to worry. ADE and iPad support it. That there is like 95% of the epub market.

There's purity and there's getting the job done. Normally, I'd still embed the font, but seeing as how Apple will fail your file if you do (something I didn't previously know), the last remaining option is clear.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Valloric

That doesn't do what you think it does. An HTML character reference is merely a convenient way of specifying the use of a character that is not easily written using ASCII alone. Basically, aside from comfort and user preference, there is no difference in using a character reference instead of a "real" UTF-8 character.

You still need a font with the required glyph to render a non-ASCII char.

There is no "HTML" font.

{sigh}. Yes, I know that. I guess what I was trying to determine was whether Luise had a unique symbol-rendering problem; something that isn't normally available in the "usual suspects" like TimesNewRoman or Arial, etc.

AND, I should have added that I'd already been down the rabbit-hole with Apple, those jacka$$e$, and knew that the embedded-font-thing was a killer for them. (And don't get me started on the whole "you have to have a Mac computer to be an authorized publisher" rant that I have stored up!!)

And, @troymc, while I agree with you in principle, my clients don't. They want to be on iPads, iBooks, iSuck, whatever. They want two things, and two things only: Kindle and Apple, no more, no less. Oh, and the occasional Nook (epub, obviously). So if the 900-lb. gorilla is going to make the sign of the (vampire) cross at embedded fonts, I'm not going to use them.

Hitch

[troymc]

Originally Posted by Valloric

but seeing as how Apple will fail your file if you do (something I didn't previously know), the last remaining option is clear.

Originally Posted by Hitch

So if the 900-lb. gorilla is going to make the sign of the (vampire) cross at embedded fonts, I'm not going to use them.

Wait - I thought the iPad just ignored embedded fonts. Are you saying that Apple is specifically refusing epubs that have embedded fonts?!

That is absolutely outrageous!


Troy

[Valloric]

Originally Posted by troymc

Wait - I thought the iPad just ignored embedded fonts. Are you saying that Apple is specifically refusing epubs that have embedded fonts?!

That is absolutely outrageous!

That appears to be the case. And yes, it's absolutely outrageous. Apple doesn't want you to produce epubs that look better (or at least offer more features) on a different device.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by troymc

Wait - I thought the iPad just ignored embedded fonts. Are you saying that Apple is specifically refusing epubs that have embedded fonts?!

That is absolutely outrageous!


Troy

No more outrageous than making my clients pay 50-55% of their royalties to "authorized publishers" because neither they nor I have Macs. So they lose 20-30% of their income, JUST BECAUSE they don't have Macs. I made an inquiry to Libre Digest for a client a MONTH ago (they only suck 55% of your royalties), for Apple exposure, and their rep has *still* not returned my contact efforts (two phone calls and 5 emails), even though my client is a royalties-paid author with TEN books to his credit. Kobo is no better, %-wise.

It's really, really, really outrageous. AT least with Kindle an author can upload his own content and not be forced to deal with a royalty-vampire for NO fracking reason.

Hitch

[charleski]

When the iPad first came out it was slammed for its lack of support for font-embedding. It doesn't really surprise me that Apple turned around and effectively banned all books with embedded fonts - that's the sort of petulant hubris that's becoming a hallmark of Steve Jobs' old age.

The iTunes Publisher Guide can be found here BTW.

[Valloric]

Originally Posted by charleski

The iTunes Publisher Guide can be found here BTW.

Thanks for the link.