MS Word 2002
I have several hundred word documents that have been created using Field Codes to hold a specific character in a special font. Signatures have been collected and scanned into images that were in turn setup as characters in this special font. At print time, the special character in the field is replaced with the signature image. This works and has worked for several years. We recently replaced our older HP Laserjet printers with Kyocera Laser printers and the wanted font replacement does not take place. Part of the necessity of this is that there is a companion system in DOS that uses the same signature font. The DOS system successfully prints it, Word does not. I can hook one of the older HP printers back up and it works. I'm going to guess that this is some kind of printer driver setting, but maybe there is something I'm missing in Word.

1. Does the DOS system print the font when the HP printer isn't installed?
2. Are you sure the DOS system uses the same font file that Word uses (it wouldn't be at all surprising if the DOS system uses a different version)?
3. Are you sure the font appears in Word's font dropdown when the HP printer isn't installed?

__________________
Cheers,
Paul Edstein
[Fmr MS MVP - Word]

It does print without the HP printer installed. I probably left out a relevant part. The font involved is sent to the printer during setup, so is resident in the printer as long as it's not reset or turned off, in which case the setup needs performed again. So it's not actually in the drop down list for Word, at least if it is, I've never looked there or used it. We use PCL within the field code to define the font and designate the character.
Both the DOS system and the Word usage, on the HP, use this method of combining at print time.
John

That suggests the PCL code you're using in the Word document (presumably inside a PRINT field) isn't recognised by the current printer.

__________________
Cheers,
Paul Edstein
[Fmr MS MVP - Word]

Hadn't thought about that, I'll see if I can get any info on that.