Have you tried going to the source?

As I recall there are some PDF related restrictions in their EULA.

Why not print Kent’s beautiful PDF? Also, for another printed view, Whitney is featured in FontBooklet No.1. Order one up if you haven’t already.

Stephen — You read too quickly. Hrant’s looking for Frere-Jones’s Whitney, not Whitman.

Hrant — If you go to the Whitney page at H&FJ’s website and click on the Language Support link on the right, you’ll see a graphic of the alphabetic set. Probably not anywhere near the detail you’re looking for.

— K.

Yikes. No more midnight TypeCon replies from me.

Hrant, I’ve sent a PDF to your Microfoundry email.

Here’s that bit in their FAQ...

http://www.typography.com/ask/topics.php?topicID=10#Faq_16

Looks like this would be classed as a “Work Flow PDF” :-)

Cheers, Si

The important question: Is it appropriate to mix Whitman and Whitney in the same document?

Hrant, your email is over quota.

Simon, you know too much. Prepare to die.

James, I’m glad to hear that damn Hostway address even signals there’s a problem. I tried to reach you via LinkedIn, but I guess you don’t have that redirecting right. Please use hpapazian_at_gmail_dot_com, and thanks profusely for the help.

Restricting embedding: no matter how negatively I feel about that in general, there’s no force majeur here that would excuse ignoring that clause in the H&FJ EULA*, which is why I mentioned convert-to-outlines as an option. Now, restricting the embedding of glyphs converted to outlines? Don’t give me an emigraine.

* Very nice to hear about distinctions between embedding intents BTW.

hhp

I’m very impressed with the H&FJ FAQ - even if you don’t like the restrictions they explain them very nicely.

Cheers, Si

Hahaha!

Emigraine.

Thought you made a typo hrant, until I found this.

> Thought you made a typo hrant, until I found this.

But here is a typo:

> there’s no force majeur here that would excuse ignoring that clause

For the French, it would be “la force majeure”.

Ah yes, thank you.

hhp