Aren't all those licensed typefaces? In that case your rant should be adressed at Linotype and Monotype and ITC (all under one hood now, as it is).

As far as I know all Adobe Originals OTFs have extensive glyph-sets.

Mondo mate have you ever even attempted to make a bloody typefacw? I doubt it. It is a bproblem when you get big players like adobe cos all they ever seem to do is suck the whiner s out of the woodowork like maggots. When you spit the dummy about stupid shit like this then you make me spit the dummy!!!

Muzz

As I've heard they have only just started planting the trees for the oldstyle figures to grow on.

"...your rant should be addressed at Linotype and Monotype and ITC."

Monotype and ITC are actually stepping in to fulfill OpenType's potential by converting their type one faces to OT with complete glyph sets. They're part of the solution.

[Edit]

I'm pretty sure the presence of osfs has to do with what Adobe had licences for.

Many Adobe fonts do have all the goodies, including some Monotype fonts like Bulmer, Dante and Fournier. It seems if Adobe had the osfs available in their library, they were added.

I note that Adobes' EULA is more liberal than many, and it may be that it was difficult to come to an agreement with the other foundries.

I like Adobe, but I have to admit...not including OSF in an OpenType font package is a pretty wicked surprise.

I think that it is easy to overlook the real, basic beniefits of OpenType fonts. For large foundries, the best thing OT fonts have going for them is their cross-platform compatability. Instead of having the worry about 20,000 fonts, because you have every font in Mac and PC versions, or even worse 40,000 fonts, because you have Mac PS, Mac TT, PC PS, and PC TT, you just have 10,000 OT fonts. And these 10,00 work everywhere (that supports OT…)

Aside from this, OpenType can include lots of other benefits, like typographic features or support for more languages. But a font is still a "real" OpenType font, even if it has neither of them.

There are really already two generations of OT-fonts at most larger foundries. The first generation was just a conversion… cut down on cross-platform issues. The second generation is where the features and the languages came in. Many smaller foundries didn't even come to the OT table until generation 2. Generation 2 fonts are better, without a doubt, but they take time to make. They'll be there, don't worry. Even if all of them aren't there yet.

OpenType is a technical standard; it doesn't specify what characters must be present. It's something of a marketing issue: you can't tell by the name 'OpenType' whether the font will have 256 characters or 3400. "Pro" is usually a good indicator there's more included, but foundries should provide showings of the specific character set of a particular design. Otherwise there's no guarantee of small caps or anything else. Producing OpenType Pro (or other advanced, enhanced OT fonts) is much more labor-intensive than simply converting the format of an existing PS or TT font. Check the character set before you buy, and look for a specific designation like "Pro".

The licensed (non-Adobe) OpenType fonts in the Adobe Type Library are all produced from the Type 1 versions which preceded them. If you look at a pre-OpenType catalog of the ATL, you'll see that whatever was or wasn't present there is the same for the OpenType versions. Of course we took all the supplemental fonts we had and combined them into a single OTF and made the alternates accessible through layout features as best we could. It was, essentially, a conversion project.

So yes, the OpenType versions of these fonts were not expanded, but neither were they reduced or limited. Licensing issues aside, I assure you we had our hands full expanding the Adobe Originals.

As for why the various expert glyphs (oldstyle figures, smallcaps) weren't available in the first place, that is probably a licensing issue in most cases, and such things are not trivial. That's some history I don't know much about, but maybe Thomas or someone else might have more to say about it.

Thanks for being so obnoxious. We really don't get much of that on the Internet and it is just so refreshing and enjoyable.

"Thanks for being so obnoxious. We really don’t get much of that on the Internet and it is just so refreshing and enjoyable."

LOL!!! :-)

ChrisL

Eheh, it's interesting to see how Adobe has helped raised the typographic bar so much, that now people take all the typographic niceties* for granted in every font :^)

* Small Caps, superiors, inferiors, ligatures, oldstyle figures, alternates, and the list goes on...

The complaint here is valid; let's talk remedies.

John,

Refuge from what? Could it be your thread title? Chris has shared useful information, as have others. If you have a product request, frame it as such. If you want to influence Adobe's actions, I would try a different tone.

"If you have a product request, frame it as such."

See above.

It's far more complicated that simply "retrieving" old style figures. The font data you're talking about are owned by someone else, and are not presently (and have never been) part of any licensing agreement with Adobe. It is far from trivial to negotiate such things. Sometime it is not possible. Remember, Adobe and Monotype have their respective businesses to run, and there are perfectly legitimate business reasons why you might never see this material in a font sold by Adobe. I don't know where you got the idea that the supplements for Plantin, et al., are so easily available to Adobe. That's simply not true.

It is even more fantastic to suggest Adobe commission such additions. We are not at liberty to create and sell additions to a typeface we're licensing from another foundry any more than, say, Monotype is at liberty to commission and sell additions for Minion.

I read Chris' post with interest, but it did not seem to answer anything or exhibit much concern. Perhaps that's why we rant.

Amazing. You post a simplistic, insulting message and complain about the quality of the response you get.

"Amazing"

No, the word is "Trolltastic" :-)

What I find amazing is the restraint by Christopher in his replies. He remained a gentleman and proceded to be helpful even though the opening volley question from MondoB (and all his others) were insulting and untrue. Christopher should be applauded.

ChrisL

"You...complain about the quality of the response you get."

Of course I do. Aside from gains in tech quality, one of the key selling points for buying OpenType is that the user's favorite glyphs, which in type one format were placed in expert fonts, will now be accessed more easily if the customer re-buys their favorites in this new format. And then, by my count, 21 serif families fail to deliver that key glyph option, and the user is left in the dark as to why. Monotype Bembo and Dante get full glyph coverage by Adobe in OT, while Bell, Photina, Plantin and others do not. Same company; what's the problem? These are not small discrepancies, but a glaring industrial problem, and I want typophiles to be aware of it in its true scale. With 435 reads the first day, this rant post serves that useful function.

Bringing about completions through collaboration is not a fantasy but rather a business opportunity not to be scoffed at. Take, for instance, Guardi, designed by Reinhard Haus of Linotype in 1986 before oldstyle figures became as prominent as they are now. This stylish Venetian face would get a completely new lease on life, in coordinated OT release, by being completed with OSFs and other glyphs in partnership with the licensor. Would the original designer and Linotype simply say no to that? We would love some answers, but more important, we would love creative, collaborative action to bring full glyphs to every text family where it is possible, particularly when each remedy means a fresh opportunity to sell. You feel insulted...what about the Adobe customers who still want to roll out Plantin with loaded OSFs?

For Plantin Pro see:
http://www.fonts.com/findfonts/detail.htm?pid=433209

and

http://www.fonts.com/findfonts/detail.htm?pid=433194

and the user is left in the dark about it.

i don't think this is true. i believe adobe and many reseller sites enumerate which features are available in which fonts. it take doing your homework to see if the options you want are available, but i think this is going to be inevitable with new OpenType Pro fonts: you have to check the list of ingredients.
now on another note. John, i think we've all gotten your memo about the importance of OSFs. can you stop harping on it for a while? it's kind of like listening to a one-note piano concerto.

Thanks John Nolan...exactly what I mean...those who bought the Adobe OT library thinking they would get Plantin with OSFs discovered they have now to RE-BUY elsewhere to get the complete glyph coverage they thought Adobe would offer as a matter of course. Older example: Stone Serif, released thru both Adobe and ITC in the early 90s...ITC offered OSFs for it years ago, but when Adobe converted Stone Serif to OT, OSFs were still missing. Why?

The status quo is hardly in Adobe's interest. Competitors are now plugging the gaps in their library for them. Why buy Adobe's incomplete Plantin (or others) when Monotype or ITC offer complete versions?

Why buy Adobe’s incomplete Plantin

Adobe's Plantin?
I think Mr Slye made it clear that Adobe's library consists of different typefaces from different sources. Adobe is originator of some, but kind of distributor of others.* (I hope this is plain enough yet still not too far from the truth.)
When complaining about "Adobe's" "incomplete" OT fonts, please remember that other foundries/resellers, including LT, MT and ITC, came out with their first OT fonts very late; MT and ITC were the last ones if I remember correctly. So there's a certain irony to it if you put all blame on Adobe ...

Indeed it is wise to compare different versions before licensing a particular one, or to find out which foundry is the originator of a typeface because they may offer the most complete family or latest version or whatever else. At least this is what I do.

@ John Stahle (a.k.a. mondoB)

How many times it needs to be said that ADOBE DOES _NOT_ HAVE THE LICENSE/AUTHORIZATION TO INCLUDE ANY ADDITIONAL GLYPHS IN THE FONTS YOU'VE MENTIONED.

We know that, Miguel...instead of waiting for licensors to update their faces at their own pace, Adobe could collaborate to complete glyphs on a typeface, then market the result jointly, exactly as two opera houses might co-produce an opera. So if Guardi, languishing with only lining figures, becomes Guardi Pro with OSFs and other glyphs, it might attract new well-merited attention it never got before.

We're also raising the far more intriguing possibility of concerted action, across the industry, whereby every font released in OT by anybody has uniformly complete glyph coverage as a new industrial standard of benefit to everyone. That way, stubborn holdouts like Monotype's Horley Oldstyle might find new popularity when given complete glyphs, esp the OSFs implied in the name.

But in the meantime, smart shoppers, as KL mentions, can find what they want elsewhere--Monotype's complete OT version of Plantin is sold on their site right alongside Adobe's incomplete version, which of course is also acquired from Monotype. And yes, they distinguish each by its "source" exactly that way: in their view, it IS "Adobe's Plantin."

Well, we've had a lovely visit to the Adobe suggestion box...my sincere thanks to Typophile for letting me air my heretical views in some detail...everybody, enjoy your holiday bird--served with oldstyle figures!!

T Bones: Sorry to dissapoint you mate, but is a photo of old Chopper Reid, an Aussie hero! I find him bloody funny, but nothing to do with typefaces!!

Do you feel better now Mondo? Had a good rant and got it all out of your system?? Maybe you could just take it easy and have a beer or two with your mates. it might be better to "put things in perspective" as me dear old mum would say. You're acting like its a scandal or something.

Muzz

John, I think part of the problem is although I think your complaint is valid— how you choose to convey your points are often a bit extreme. Instead of accusations, perhaps inquire about why this exists, instead of going on a tirade. Shock tactics often work to get attention, but once you've gotten the attention the tactics can be called into question.

On the other hand, while it is the buyer's responsibility, to investigate the features in large font packages...what is included with each family can also be misleading. In addition to going through a line item on every font in a package (which can number in thousands) the user is also expected to check every feature associated with every single font in a package? Let's get real people, spending thousands of dollars on a font package and finding a surprise like this might get you a little miffed. No disrespect to the people who worked hard on putting packages like this together— but we can't forget about the consumer, this can be considered misleading.

Of course I wish we had all those extra goodies in the OpenType versions of the third-party licensed typefaces in our library. And I can understand some folks' frustration at the face that those goodies existed (if not ever in Adobe's type library) but were not included in Adobe's OpenType versions of the fonts.

It might help people to rewind the clock to round about late 2001, when Adobe was doing planning to convert its entire library to OpenType.

It was clear to us then that the rest of the type industry needed a indication of commitment from Adobe, that this OpenType thing was more than just a flirtation. Converting our entire type library to OpenType seemed like the strongest measure of that (along with increased OpenType support in our applications, which we were also working on at that time).

My take is that negotiating new contracts with Linotype and Monotype/ITC, and then integrating additional materials, would have delayed things a couple of years if it was even successful.

I can't know for sure, but I wouldn't want to bet either way on whether Lino and Mono would have agreed at the time. Heck, Linotype hasn't even given Adobe the rights to resell any of the fancy new OpenType fonts they've made over the last few years. Clearly they feel there is value in keeping some goodies to themselves.

But even if it had been a viable option, delaying our OpenType conversion for, say, two years to incorporate more goodies would not have been a wise move, IMO. In those first few years of OpenType it was not a foregone conclusion that OpenType would become the new standard and other type foundries would flock to it. Had we taken too long to get our library converted, it would have raised serious questions about commitment to the format, and quite possibly cost us the momentum we needed - I'm not sure we would have reached "escape velocity" with that delay.

At *best*, I believe it would have slowed the rest of the industry's conversion to OpenType by about two years as well. I can imagine us being in this alternate universe, wherein QuarkXPress 7 doesn't have any OpenType layout support, and the rest of the type foundries would be now at the point they were at two years ago - and that's my *best* outcome.

If we'd had to tell Adobe's own applications that we wouldn't have a converted font library until 2005, I don't know if we'd have gotten their full buy-in when we did, either. Being able to promise that the fonts were coming and quickly was an important part of why our own applications bought into the feature support. So at worst, OpenType might have been relegated to the same status as AAT or multiple masters... ack.

That's all speculation, of course. That being said, I've watched this very carefully from the inside for 9.5 years now, and have been involved in a lot of discussions about OpenType support with our own applications, third parties, and OS vendors over the years.

So, I wish that we had more typographic goodies in the third party fonts, but even if we could revisit that decision, I don't know that I for one would be arguing for us to so it differently.

Cheers,

T

Thomas Phinney
Product Manager
Fonts & Global Typography
Adobe Systems

Oh, and as a side note, one can accuse people of whatever you like, but calling the type group at Adobe lazy is just plain hogwash. You have no idea how hard this team works, and how many hours a week they put in.

I was down in San Jose Monday through Wednesday last week. I vividly remember sticking my head out of my borrowed office at about 6:30 or 7 one evening as I started to think about dinnertime. The majority of the entire group was still in their offices, cranking away.

And this is nothing compared to the hours people were putting in during the library conversion....

Cheers,

T

Mondo,

I think you should understand a simple thing: it was not a matter of Adobe "collaborating" with Linotype, Monotype or ITC. My guess is that when Adobe released the "Std" versions of the Linotype, Monotype and ITC fonts, the LinoMonoITC conglomerate (as it is now) were interested in releasing "Pro" versions of these faces later. So it was quite obvious that neither Linotype nor Monotype/ITC were particularly fond of giving the data to Adobe on a "good will" basis. Also, adding new glyphs requires new kerning etc. With the sheer number of typefaces in the Adobe Type Library, this would surely delay the production considerably.

But there is a simple key to the naming in the Adobe Type Library. "Std" and "Pro". You can simply assume that the Adobe "Std" fonts are simply a sum of the previously existing Adobe Type 1 fonts while the "Pro" fonts have been reworked and expanded.

The Plantin Type 1 versions with OsF you're referring to were the Monotype versions, not the Adobe versions, as far as I can tell.

A.

Figuring out what is available in a type family isn't that difficult. Yes, some sites do not offer enough information. However, if you know what it is that you need, why is it so difficult to find out. Most foundries can be reached by phone or e-mail, or even here on Typophile.

If you took the time to look on the pages at Adobe you'd notice they tell you right there on the page what you are getting with the font. A little comparison can go a long way.

Exhibit A: Plantin STD

Exhibit B: Garamond Premier Pro

I wonder if mondo will have the balls to say sorry.

Muzz

Mostly I wonder who the rest of "we" is?

ChrisL

Figuring out what is available in a type family isn’t that difficult. Yes, some sites do not offer enough information. However, if you know what it is that you need, why is it so difficult to find out.

Tiff, I think it is often more difficult than it needs to be. While your example is an "ideal" situation, if you're starting from scratch building a type library from the ground up and you need for example ALL of the classics— line item searching takes a long time. Time you may not have when you've got a lot of clients and a lot of work piling up.

Example. I did some research to get the most cost effective package(s) to get the company I work for up and running. I found a few fonts in the package were bits and pieces of complete families. Huh? What am I going to do with just the bold weights of some well known families? A consumer can feel like (at least I do) that if I can't have it all there...don't give it to me at all.

It's like buying a bicycle and finding out there's no wheels in the box. I'm not saying I'm not partially at fault— but buying font bundles can get a little tricky.

I guess I am idealizing, I'm sorry for that Terry. Yes, this example I've posted above is probably a best case scenario.

Perhaps this is the downside of buying (in) bundles. That being you might miss something that you would have caught had you only been licensing a single family.

I suppose my reaction comes from my own experiences. That's not to say I haven't had my own fiasco. I've licensed a large family after realizing (remembering) that it was bundled with the software. (Long store, don't ask.)

But I think, perhaps, that when you are buying in bundles it is enough of an investment that someone should be involving the foundry more. Telling them exactly what your needs/hopes are. It sounds like your situation was rushed, that is unforunate.

Muzz,

I wouldn't go so far as to call the 'ol chop chop an aussie hero...

--N

Many thanks to Thomas for an illuminating post. Launching OpenType was a
high-wire act, for which Adobe deserves all kinds of credit. But we also see
this work is far from finished. The initiative for transforming type
classics into full-glyph OpenType has passed to others, notably Monotype and
ITC. That's where the OT action is now: the new issues at fonts.com and
itcfonts.com.

I voiced my complaint on behalf of the many customers who spent thousands on
Adobe's complete OpenType library expecting to enjoy a new world of options
across the board. Then, in a dismaying number of faces, they got nothing of
the sort. For quite a few, literally the only new thing was the Euro
symbol. Those who still wanted full-glyph versions of faces left incomplete by Adobe now had to BUY THEM AGAIN elsewhere, if they could. For these burned customers, my complaint would seem understated.

Mondo,

I'm not sure why it is so that you or other customers believed that the new OpenType library contains something that it doesn't contain. I remember Adobe advertising the OpenType library as offering a cross-platform font solution (the same font file for different operating systems), easier access to various extra glyphs such as ligatures, Unicode compatibility, the presence of the euro character, and -- for the "Pro" fonts -- expanded character sets. This actually already accounts for a "new world of options".

However, if some computer magazine journalist or whoever else this might be made you or some other customers that "everything is new" in the Adobe OpenType library, I'd seriously go and complain to that very journalist or the other person.

Otherwise, I would be interested to hear how you arrived at that very "expectation" that you describe. I don't recollect hearing anybody at Adobe lying about the contents of the Std fonts -- therefore I'd be curious to know.

Best,
Adam

Adam, if you go to their website sales copy for Adobe Font Folio OpenType edition, under Key Benefits of buying the CD, it promises:

--Revive fine typography with expanded glyph sets containing swashes, small caps, and old-style figures...

--Take advantage of multiple font packages with merged character sets, allowing easy access to expert set characters — such as small capitals and old-style figures — when using OpenType savvy applications...

Nowhere on that page does it say "except for families we could not complete this way" or words to that effect. The customer finds that out the hard way. Basically Adobe's response to this complaint comes down to "you should have read the fine print" or rather checked out each font or family's glyph schedule. But as Terry Biddle said above, this is completely impractical--there are "more than 2,200 fonts."

If you read the Key Benefits, you will see that a customer would be easily misled into thinking full glyphs are promised across the board. I've heard exactly this lament from plenty of NYC type buyers who are usually tough customers. The helpful thing would be for Adobe to list faces/families by their glyph coverage in one place; nothing of the sort appears in the sales section now. Thomas, in his post above, admits the validity of our complaint while pleading extenuating circumstances. For those burned, that's very cold comfort, and for the retailer, worse PR.

John, I sympathize -- up to a point.
I think your expectations have been fluffed by Adobe's largesse, which has also made them somewhat indiscriminate.
So it's good that you have raised this issue, so that reality can set in.
The fact is, as the foot soldiers are pointing out, OpenType is a huge job of work.
With the bernefits it offers also comes the responsibility, and the onus, for end users to become more informed about the differences between font features -- better typographers, even. Because there is no longer a standard font format, if there ever was. Even with Adobe's offerings, which do a good job of being consistent, there are still internal discrepencies, such as the Adobe Caslon Pro Small Caps issue (when you select small caps in InDesign, you get vrai for the Roman, but faux for the Italic). I mention this not to castigate Adobe, but to draw a line that is hopefully helpful.

Now mix into the equation the different feature sets that independent foundries will implement in their OpenType fonts, and I think what will emerge is a cultural environment where the expertise of typographers will come to the fore, in discriminating between not just the aesthetic quality of typefaces and fonts, but also their functional capabilites, based on their differing feature sets. So mass bundling won't be an easy option, for seller or buyer.

Thanks Nick...you second a point I made, that we type lovers have to become very tough type shoppers. As I mentioned, the OT initiative has passed to other sources, like Monotype and ITC. From ITC, at long last, we can now get Berkeley Oldstyle with the oldstyle figures they had originally, pre-Postscript. And who ever thought we would see oldstyle figures for ITC Franklin Gothic? These options have emerged only in the past year. And, after the period of exclusivity I presume the licensors want, Adobe could acquire these completed versions in place of the incomplete versions they sell now.

Mondo,

if I were to buy a library of 2,200 fonts, I'd seriously ask myself "did they actually extend all of those 2,200 fonts with additional glyphs"? Now, I agree, this skepticism would mean that the potential buyer knew the original Type 1 offerings of Adobe (which often were without OsF). But I don't see how a reasonable buyer should be disappointed by finding out that the 2,200 fonts he got are not "all noo" ("noo" being a New York pronunciation of "new", btw ;)

This really almost boils down to the popular belief that fonts grow on trees. The fact is that now, due to OpenType, companies such as Linotype, Monotype, ITC start extending their fonts with additional glyphs -- but this is done *one family at a time*. Anybody who even remotely understands type design would realize that the Adobe OpenType library could not realistically be extended in their entirety.

I simply cannot agree that it is fair to call Adobe "lazy".

Fortunately enough, the naming key ("Std" vs. "Pro") should be a good indication on what is going on.

"the naming key ('Std' vs. 'Pro') should be a good indication on what is going on."

except it isn't. "Std" means a lot of things, discoverable only by researching each font's glyph schedule. Monotype Dante and Bembo "Std" have been converted impeccably, with full glyph coverage and beautiful, easily accessed oldstyle figures, but Monotype Photina Std contains no new glyphs at all, just the Euro symbol.

Monotype Photina Std contains no new glyphs at all, just the euro symbol, even though the type one version had expert fonts with glyphs.

Adobe did not sell any Type 1 expert fonts for Photina. Adobe converted its library from Type 1 to OpenType, and it's safe to say that if it's a non-Adobe font, the OpenType-format font has the same glyphs as the Type 1 font(s) (aside from some marginal additions like Euro). I know of no cases where anything was removed.

At Adobe, the name "Pro" means that the character set supports Central European languages. Anything else is "Std". Other font vendors have chosen to use those suffixes and assign different meanings -- but Adobe was the first to use them as far as I know.

Whether Adobe was lazy or just impatient, sweeping the incomplete into the same bundle with the complete, we don’t know and they’re not saying ...

The concept could not have been more simple: convert our Type 1 font library into OpenType format. I think Thomas's description of the process and decisions and reasoning was detailed and accurate. (Thanks, Thomas!)

Thanks Chris...I meant to cite Plantin as carrying expert fonts in type one; Photina, as you say, did not. According to the Precision Type Font Reference Guide Version 5.0 (1995), p. 305, Monotype Plantin 1 and 2 expert sets were offered by Adobe in type one, which makes their absence in Adobe's OT quite puzzling.

Hmm, I see that. It looks like Precision Type's choice of format is misleading there, since they have their foundry codes next to the family name and don't seem to have a way to specify the extent of each particular foundry's offering. Despite what the PT guide (unfortunately) implies, Adobe never had the Type 1 Plantin expert fonts in its library.

I just dug up my old type one Plantin Expert fonts, and under the screen fonts suitcase file "more info" in OSX it says they carry a 1991 copyright from Adobe. So I must have acquired them from Adobe. But thank you for checking at your end. Maybe Adobe somehow lost the rights to the expert sets after the mid-90s and before OT conversions, because in your Adobe type library reference book dated Oct. 2000, they don't appear under Plantin, although other Monotypes still had their expert sets. A puzzle.

That's really weird. I have the Adobe 1991 type catalog here and there are no expert Plantin fonts listed there. (The 1990 Adobe catalog doesn't list any Plantin, so Adobe must have been added just after.)

I'll ask around the office.

...and a "creation" date of June 1992, presumably followed by release. These are the Adobe-copyrighted Plantin expert fonts I've been using ever since. I tried to upload a screen snap of the file data, but it wouldn't take.

Thanks to whoever renamed the thread to a less offensive title.

Ah, David Lemon was good enough to explain it to us. Monotype licensed Adobe's Type 1 font production tools to produce their own Type 1 versions of their fonts around 1991, and that resulted in Adobe copyrights in the font files.

Most of those same fonts were later licensed to Adobe and rebuilt by Adobe to our technical standards, but Plantin Expert was not among them. I can't say why.

But the rule of thumb is still simple: we converted everything that we had the rights to convert from Type 1 to OpenType, merging all supplemental fonts that were available to us at the time. We continue to sell the Type 1 versions, although they're a little harder to find on our Web site. So you can tell we didn't have Plantin Expert by seeing that we don't have it now. Go to the appropriate page for Plantin Std and click on the "More Info" tab at lower right, and you can find the Type 1 fonts listed.

Of course, if you want to know what's in the OpenType font, all you have to do is look at the cyan blue icons right on the main page for each font or family. Or you can download the PDF that shows every glyph in the font. It's not like we make it hard.

Cheers,

T