Typographic wtf



  • Publishing a book on Amazon. Book was rejected because of "font problems". The unhelpful error message:

    The interior contains font errors that we are unable to move forward with. For example, characters on PDF page(s) several pages are appearing as boxes. Please recreate the file, ensuring that all fonts appear correctly.

    Since I'm using Palatino and Euler, I'm pretty sure they don't like [tombstone][1] symbols.

    [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tombstone_%28typography%29

    I'm on the ass end of a two-day turnaround time for them to tell me what the problem is. Ass. Ass. Ass. Ass.



  • Haha! Honestly, I thought that was a "fallback" glyph too. Had no idea it had meaning in mathematics.



  • How do they fuck up this so badly, though? If you were checking for missing symbols, I can imagine you'd check the actual codepoint requested against the glyph drawn. Why would you check that a specific glyph isn't ever used, and ignore the underlying codepoint?



  • @Captain said:

    Ass. Ass. Ass. Ass.

    Liked only for this reason.



  • How do they fuck up this so badly, though? If you were checking for missing symbols, I can imagine you'd check the actual codepoint requested against the glyph drawn.

    I think they just have a person look at the pdf files.



  • Shouldn't the tombstone be solid, not an outline?



  • The American Mathematical Society standardized on the outline for its journals like 20 years ago, and since they released AMS-Latex (the preferred package of math symbols for Latex), the outline is pretty much dominant now.



  • @Captain said:

    The American Mathematical Society standardized on the outline for its journals like 20 years ago, and since they released AMS-Latex (the preferred package of math symbols for Latex), the outline is pretty much dominant now.

    QED.



  • @tarunik said:

    @Captain said:
    The American Mathematical Society standardized on the outline for its journals like 20 years ago, and since they released AMS-Latex (the preferred package of math symbols for Latex), the outline is pretty much dominant now.

    QED.

    QEE.



  • Admittedly I'm not a math major, but am I the only one who thinks that box on the right seems out of place? WTF does it mean if it's not a font rendering issue?




  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Captain said:

    I'm pretty sure they don't like tombstone symbols.

    The last time I dealt with complex math was probably 15 years ago or more but why can't you use the three-dots symbol? (Or a filled-in tombstone instead of a hollow square. That last, they'd probably realize wasn't a "missing glyph" symbol.



  • @Captain said:

    The American Mathematical Society standardized on the outline for its journals like 20 years ago, and since they released AMS-Latex (the preferred package of math symbols for Latex), the outline is pretty much dominant now.

    I hate these "few fangled" changes....If the solid box was good enough for the 1970's (when I did most of my formal math) then it should be good enough for today... Darn whipper-snappers!!!


  • area_can

    All of my profs use the outline, but some of my older textbooks have the filled one. Weird.



  • These are like little checkboxes that you can tick whenever you've understood the proof (or at least think you do).

    Come to think of it, I too prefer the pre-filled ones.



  • @Captain said:

    The American Mathematical Society standardized on the outline for its journals like 20 years ago

    I was going to say "wait, that can't be right, the filled one was still quite common when I was doing my doctorate", but then I remembered that that was almost 20 years ago...



  • The three-dots symbol is "Therefore" which goes before the conclusion, unlike "End of proof" which comes after.

    And, for what it's worth, Microsoft Cambria has the filled-in one.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Well, we could use, I dunno, four dots for QED. Or maybe the hamburger icon.



  • @Rhywden said:

    QEE.

    ?

    I don't understand this abbreviation, not even its expansion ( http://www.abbreviations.com/QEE )

    Disclaimer: Please don't apply for a someone-didn't-get-the-joke badger: http://www.acronymattic.com/QEE.html



  • Quod Erat Expectandum



  • Latin for "duh".



  • Thank you for your patience while our Technical Services Team investigates the font error issue with your interior file. After further research, the box or tombstone symbol, is creating the issue within your interior. Our system is recognizing the box character is identical to the symbol for a font error and as such, this will cause issues in production.

    We strive to produce quality products for our members and their potential customers. For this reason, we are unable to waive our submission requirements. While we allow our members to maintain the majority of the creative control, we are unable to sway from these specifications. Please update your native file and remove the tombstone symbol or replace it with an alternate symbol.

    Sometimes automation sucks.



  • Can you put it on a Unicode private-use code point and add that glyph to the font?



  • What good would that do? It'd still look like an empty square and still trigger their broken OCR.

    It's obviously not checking Unicode codes, or else it wouldn't have flagged the book in the first place. Since he's using a perfectly legit one.



  • I don't think their software is using OCR. In that case it would barf on a whole slew of things like square list bullets and empty checkboxes.



  • Oh, it's certainly OCR:

    OCR through Eyeball Mk I.

    It's just that the datafeed leads to the meatspace equivalent of /dev/null.



  • @Rhywden said:

    It's just that the datafeed leads to the meatspace equivalent of /dev/null/dev/i-dont-understand-it-it-must-be-worng.

    FTFY


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    What good would that do? It'd still look like an empty square and still trigger their broken OCR.

    If he could do that he could change the glyph, perhaps making the box a bit bigger and thicker ( :giggity: ) or less square or something so it's not identical to the "not found" one.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.