The present invention is related to co-pending U.S. Application, entitled METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING FONTS IN DOCUMENTS, Ser. No. 09/651,831, filed on Aug. 30, 2000, and assigned to the assignee of the present invention.
The present invention relates to storage and use of font identification in documents to ensure accurate font matching.
Desktop publishing tools have made document production easier and more widespread. In an ideal workflow for desktop publishing, any document opened on any machine in any application would have the correct fonts activated with the document and have error-free printing. Unfortunately, such an ideal workflow does not exist at present due to problems with font identification within documents.
Using the “wrong” font can cause a document to image incorrectly. Thus, the problems with font identification extend to documents provided in a plethora of environments, including HTML (hyper text markup language) page “documents” and text packet “documents” downloaded to set-top boxes, for example. The wrong font is one whose data (metrics, glyphs, encoding, etc.) differ from the original font such that text won't image in the same manner as with the original font. With most applications in the computing environment today, fonts are referenced using the name of the font. For example, in a QuarkXPress or Adobe Illustrator document, any fonts used within the document are referenced by the document using the font's name as the key, e.g., if a document used Bauhaus Bold as a font, the name Bauhaus Bold will be referenced within the document. Whenever that document is opened by the application, the application will make a request to the Operating System for a font with the referenced name, e.g. Bauhaus Bold.
While the inclusion of the font name does allow for a rudimentary identification of the font used, a problem arises from the fact that the font name is not unique within the font name space. In other words, there may be numerous fonts that go by the same name, e.g., Bauhaus Bold, that, in fact, behave in different ways. While these fonts may actually be fairly close in specification, the differences can be sufficient to cause some drastic problems. For example, if the width tables of the two Bauhaus Bold fonts are different, the horizontal line spacing could be different when the document is imaged with the incorrect Bauhaus Bold font. The end result could be as drastic as paragraphs of text missing their last line. The ramifications of this, and the potential liability, can be, and often is, quite significant.
Embedding the entire font within a document is a possibility that exists in order to avoid problems with incorrect font identification. Unfortunately, fonts are copyrighted and are licensed for use. By embedding the fonts within documents, there is huge potential for copyright infringement and very little protection for the intellectual property that is the font, since the documents may be used in a variety of worksites. Further, font files can be large, and therefore, embedding all the necessary font files within a document can result in very large document files, as well as a lot of redundancy, since many documents share the same fonts.
Accordingly, a need exists for a method and system for uniquely identifying fonts in a meaningful and efficient manner and for avoiding problems that mismatched fonts cause in document exchange. The present invention addresses such a need.
The present invention provides method and system aspects for uniquely identifying fonts in a document. The unique identification includes calculating a plurality of attributes for a font and saving the plurality of attributes as a font specification.
With the present invention, unique font identification is provided for documents in an efficient manner to successfully avoid problems associated with font mismatching. The use of font specifications in accordance with the present invention is performed without any reliance on a specific operating platform or on copyrighted information of a font. These and other advantages of the aspects of the present invention will be more fully understood in conjunction with the following detailed description and accompanying drawings.
The present invention relates to font identification in documents, including Internet HTML pages, and text packets downloaded to set-top boxes. The following description is presented to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention and is provided in the context of a patent application and its requirements. Thus, the present invention is not intended to be limited to the embodiment shown, but is to be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and features described herein.
The aspects of the font identification through font specifications and the storage and usage of font specifications in accordance with the present invention are preferably performed in a suitable document production environment, e.g., a Macintosh production environment.
In accordance with the present invention, font specifications are created to uniquely identify each font used in a document by calculating a plurality of attributes for a font and saving these attributes as a font specification, as described with reference to an overall block diagram of
For purposes of this disclosure, font specifications refer to a set of value: data pairs corresponding to the font attributes for a particular font, including include PostScript name, foundry, version, kind, glyph data, horizontal metrics, vertical metrics, encoding, and kerning. Each unique font identification is formed from a single font specification of the value:data pairs. The following provides the description of the value:data pairs for each of the attributes.
PostScript Name: a font's name as defined by the font. This is an ASCII string, generally less than 40 bytes.
Foundry: the name of the font's foundry, as defined by the font. Some fonts include foundry name, while others have unique signatures which can be used to determine the foundry, as is well understood by those skilled in the art.
Version: the version of the font, as defined by the font. Generally an ASCII string of less than 32 characters.
Kind: the font's format and required technology. An example of technology is PostScript or TrueType. An example of format is Type 1 or Type 3 or Multiple Master (for PostScript fonts). The following are examples of possible data for the kind attribute: PostScript Type 1, PostScript Type 3, PostScript Multiple Master, TrueType, PostScript Type 1 Outline, PostScript Type 3 Outline, bitmap, OpenType PostScript, OpenType TrueType.
Glyph data: a checksum value representing the font's glyphs. Glyphs are the images stored within a font.
Horizontal metrics: a value representing a checksum of the horizontal metrics data.
Vertical metrics: a value representing a checksum of the vertical metrics data.
Encoding: a value representing a checksum of the encoding vector data.
Kerning: a value representing a checksum of the kerning data.
Determination of these attributes (step 22,
The checksums are used in the font specifications as a means to identify a font characteristic which affects a font's behavior (glyphs, horizontal and vertical metrics, kerning, encoding.) The use of the checksums provides efficiency, reliability, and safety, since the checksums are very compact representations of a large set of data and can be calculated quickly, the values generated are very likely to be unique for different sets of data, even if that data is very similar, and there is no way to recover any useful portion of the original data, thus avoiding liability over license issues. While there are many different checksum algorithms, each with their own strengths, the following algorithm is suitable for the present invention.
Initialization
1. set checksum to 0.
2. get first 32-bit chunk of data from source.
Loop
1. add next 32-bit chunk of data to checksum value.
2. rotate checksum value to the left by 1 bit. For example, a value of 3 in binary is 0011; rotated to the left by 1 bit is 0100, or 4 in decimal. A binary value of 1000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0001; or 2147483649 in decimal, becomes 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0011, or 3 in decimal after rotating.
In addition to the creation of the font specifications to uniquely identify fonts in a document, the storage and usage of the font specifications in order to avoid font mismatching in accordance with the present invention are described in further detail with reference to
Referring now to
In addition to the use of the font specifications and database when saving a document, the database is also accessed when opening a document. Referring to
As presented herein, the present invention effectively provides creation of font specifications that uniquely identify fonts used in a document. The present invention further provides efficient storage of the font specifications for unique association with each font in a database. In this manner, use of the proper and desired font within a document is assured.
Although the present invention has been described in accordance with the embodiments shown, one of ordinary skill in the art will readily recognize that there could be variations to the embodiments and those variations would be within the spirit and scope of the present invention. Accordingly, many modifications may be made by one of ordinary skill in the art without departing from the spirit and scope of the appended claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5291243 | Heckman et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5528742 | Moore et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5533174 | Flowers et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5583978 | Collins et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5689724 | Morgan et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5754187 | Ristow et al. | May 1998 | A |
5825987 | Asada | Oct 1998 | A |
5990907 | Colletti | Nov 1999 | A |
6065008 | Simon et al. | May 2000 | A |
6073147 | Chan et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6157390 | Cheng | Dec 2000 | A |
6278465 | Nielsen | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6323864 | Kaul et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6323865 | Colletti | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6331895 | Erickson et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6338003 | Kamiguchi et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6381028 | Gauthier | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6426751 | Patel et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6460040 | Burns | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6480291 | Daniels et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6501475 | Cheng | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6510426 | Cohen et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6512522 | Miller et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6512531 | Gartland | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6535214 | Morikawa et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6552728 | Moore et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6613099 | Crim | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6615234 | Adamske et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6618162 | Wiklof et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6661416 | Muikaichi et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6665842 | Nielsen | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6675357 | Carter et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6675358 | Kido | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6678410 | Phinney et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6678688 | Unruh | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6687879 | Teshima | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6775729 | Matsuo et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6853980 | Ying et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6882344 | Hayes et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6901427 | Teshima | May 2005 | B1 |
6954898 | Nakai et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
7111238 | Kuppusamy et al. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
20010048437 | Sato et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020054349 | Cohen et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020174145 | Duga et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030028561 | Gounares et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |