Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Modifying MinionPro

Oct 14, 2011 7:24 AM

Tags: #cs5 #legal #modification #caps

Hi all,


a customer of ours uses the MinionPro heavily for his productions. He uses the complete family

No it seems that something has changed in InDesign 4 or 5. Our customer plans to change tfrom older CS versions up to 3 to  CS5, but e.g. the OT-caps feature does not work with the  "old" fonts.

The fonts shipped with CS 5 work fine.


Unfortunately the glyph repertoire is slightly different, the "old" version has for example a few more ornaments included.


Since our customer has lots of existing documents he likes to use the "old" version.

Taking a look into the fonts, I found out that Indesign's behaviour seems to be triggered by the absence of an "DFLT" ScriptTag (thats how ttx names the xml tag) in the GSUB table.

Is it allowed to add this to make the fonts working again?


Are there some more details about the changes in the fonts?


The customers version of MinionPro is

1 Rev 21


Version 1.021;PS 001.001;Core 1.0.35;makeotf.lib1.5.4492


CS5 version is

2 Rev 68


Version 2.068;PS 2.000;hotconv 1.0.57;makeotf.lib2.0.21895


Thanks for your help in advance


Best regards


Jochen Evertz

  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 14, 2011 6:24 PM   in reply to JEEE23



    When Adobe makes modifications to its fonts, generally the modifications are to (1) fix any design problem (i.e., the shapes of the glyphs), (2) metrics, (3) OpenType table entries used by InDesign and other programs that can take advantage of OpenType features, and/or (4) to augment the complement of glyphs adding additional glyphs to support additional languages, currency symbols, etc.


    I am aware of any changes to the Minion Pro family that eliminated any glyphs, ornaments or otherwise. Examining the OpenType font in FontLab, you can see the current ornament glyphs annotated in light red.


    What particular glyph from an earlier version of Minion Pro do you believe is missing from the current version? 


              - Dov

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 17, 2011 6:59 AM   in reply to JEEE23

    Apparently, a correction was made to move the glyphs into their proper Unicode positions instead of private use area.


    Do you know of any glyphs that got lost moving to the new version?


              - Dov

    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points