In article <_gCsk.12225$Rs1.764@newsfe08.iad>, maximus@microsoft.com 
says...

> Thank you for the help. I played Ken's script a little bit, and found that 
> it is not possible to cache a big font in the printer. The printer shows Max 
> Glyph Size as 25K, and max cached glyphs as 7K. The numbers are just too 
> small.

Those are 'odd' numbers, the maximum size of a sinlge glyph appears to 
exceed the maximum set aside for caching glyphs...

But as I said, I doubt if this is your problem. Its unlikely the bitmap 
is very large and even if it is the glyph would normally simply be 
rendered direct from the glyph program, without recourse to the cache.

Slow, but robust.

I suspect the problem is the size of the font cache, which you may yet 
be able to alter.

Again you could experiment with this by creating fonts containing 
different numbers of glyphs and see where they stop working.


> After some search, it is mentioned that CID type 1 (type 10?) format can 
> encode a type3 font with larger encoding range. However, I am unable to find 
> an example. Any ideas?

The Encoding range is really down to the internal representation of the 
font. In your original post you said you had been using compostie fonts 
originally, but these didn't work. CIDFonts are an alternatvie to 
composite fonts which are easier to use, but are no substantially 
smaller. If composite fonts didn't work I doubt CIDFonts will.

However, if you want to experiment with CIDFonts, you don't need to go 
to type 3. You can use a CIDFontType 2 with a FontType of 11, which uses 
TrueType outlines directly. (p377 of the third edition PLRM)

This assumes, of course, that your printer is level 3 and supports 
CIDFonts.


                        Ken