Font rendering

[Woody44]

SoftMaker has long promoted SoftMaker Officer as offering "Seamless exchange of documents" with Microsoft Word.

Document compatibility between Microsoft Word and TextMaker has typically been better than between LibreOffice Writer and Word, but it has never been "seamless." For whatever reason, TextMaker does not handle font metrics exactly the same as Word. I hoped this would be improved in SoftMaker Office 2026, but it has not improved.

I am attaching a composite view, created by opening the same file (a book manuscript being formatted for print-on-demand through Amazon KDP) in TextMaker 2026, Word 2016, and LibreOffice 26.2. The body text font is Crimson. I don't remember where I obtained that font. The copyright is Sebastian Kosch, and I most likely downloaded it from one of the free font sites like 1,001 Fonts or Font Squirrel. It is an OpenType font.

The original file was created in Word 2016, which is what the author has and uses. I do his interior formatting/layout for him. It is a severe problem when pages are formatted precisely so that every page has the same number of lines on it, and then opening the file in a different program changes the typography. If you compare the three views, two things should be obvious. First, in TextMaker the on-screen rendering of the font is lighter/thinner than it is in either Word or LibreOffice. I do not understand how that is even possible -- I thought the whole point of Windows was to allow every program to display fonts the same. On screen, the difference is more pronounced than it appears to be in these screen captures (which I created using the Windows snipping tool).

Secondly, the font metrics are different. As you go through the body of the text, some lines don't end at the same word. This changes the lineation of the text. Over the course of a chapter, this can have a cascading effect on widows, orphans, and pagination. It basically makes it impossible to effectively send the file back and forth as we work on it.

That's a problem. That is not "seamless" compatibility with Microsoft Word.

[ITFlip]

Display & Printing Different

I also have seen this issue between Word and TextMaker, even when using more common typefaces and whether the document is left-justified or full-justified: display and printing in TextMaker does not match display and printing in Word.

However, when I modify the Word-created document in TextMaker, save it, then reopen it in Word, the Word layout returns. That is, saving the TextMaker layout does not seem to permanently change the layout of the document.

While that may be encouraging, it does not help when discussing the layout of a document with someone or when printing the document for someone who is using Word when you’re using TextMaker (text might be on a different line or even on a different page).


FYI, Starting with a Document Created with MS Word

• Collabora Office for Desktop v26.04.1.4 matches the layout of Word (unsurprisingly since it is base on LibreOffice).

• TextMaker NX 2026 Beta, OnlyOffice 9.4.0.129 and MobiDocs v11.50. have their own individual layouts (i.e. they do not match each other or Word). It would be especially nice to surpass OnlyOffice (and therefore Euro-Office?) by matching Word's layout.

• Oddly enough, the layout in TextMaker seems to be the same as the layout out in Ability Write 11.0.5 (Ability Office).

[Woody44]

However, when I modify the Word-created document in TextMaker, save it, then reopen it in Word, the Word layout returns. That is, saving the TextMaker layout does not seem to permanently change the layout of the document.

While that may be encouraging, it does not help when discussing the layout of a document with someone or when printing the document for someone who is using Word when you’re using TextMaker (text might be on a different line or even on a different page).

This is precisely the problem. It doesn't help that the typography reverts to Word formatting when the file is again opened in Word. In the example I cite, I am not the author -- I am the book designer. The author sends me a completed manuscript, which I then format for printing. I then send it back to him to be uploaded to Amazon KDP. I expend significant time and effort to eliminate widows and orphans, and to ensure that all pages (or at least all facing pages) align at the bottom across facing pages.

If reopening the file in Word upsets that, all my work will have been wasted.

If reopening the file in Word upsets that, then it cannot honestly be said that TextMaker provides "seamless exchange of documents" with Microsoft Word.

I am not a programmer. I have no idea how all this works behind the scenes, but I had always understood that in a Windows (or Linux) environment the typography was handled by the operating system and by the metrics built into each font. Based on this problem, my assumption was obviously incorrect. Whatever causes it, it needs to be fixed. Aside from the inherent dishonesty of advertising "seamless" document exchange when the exchange is not seamless -- it creates very real problems for end users.

My personal preferences aside, Microsoft Word currently holds between 80 and 90% of the word processor market for business and government usage in the U.S., and between 75 and 85% world-wide. In order to be viable as an alternate to or replacement for Microsoft Word, any word processing software MUST provide truly seamless document exchange. It cannot muck up the formatting when opening a document.

[ITFlip]

I totally agree.

[Jossi]

IIRC, in a discussion many years ago, it was said that Microsoft does not reveal the exact way in which fonts are rendered in Word, either on screen or in print. This means that competitors had to try to mimic it as closely as possible. This would explain why different word processors produce slightly different results, both compared to Word and compared to each other.
Of course, this doesn’t solve the problem, which is a real issue whenever precise layout is required, as described by Woody44. I’m only afraid that there is no easy solution.

[lgsl]

Various considerations:

1. The version of DOCX, that is used by MS Word is "transitional", this means that it differs from the OOXML standard in witch is based off and that, in itself, is considered a mess. In this case "transitional" means that it makes uses of non-standard extensions/add-ons of witch some are proprietary and other poorly or completely undocumented. This means that non-MS word processors have to take their best guests at how this bits work and behave. The situation is so bad that not even between versions of MS Office is consistent. You can find inconsistencies between MS Office for Windows, Mac, Android, iOS and web, when opening the same document. This fenomenom has been researched and well documented by the document foundation as to why OOXML as is treated by MS is a hoax. Simply put: MS doesn't want DOCX to follow the standard they came up with because they will loose vendor lock-in. That's bad for business.

2. While word processors can be use to create layouts with a moderate complexity, is not their main purpose. Making layouts for books in a word processor is simply madness. Hence the existence of DPT programs and why professionals use this instead word processors. DTP gives you better tools that allows for better control over layout, text and images. What a word processor offers you is basic in comparison. I have bought several books published using KDP and I can always tell when they were layout with a word processor. They always look unfinished and unrefined.

3. Never manipulate a file that is meant for production with software from different vendors, specially when this file itself relies in a non real interoperable standard, as is the case of DOCX. Use always the same application fro mt he same vendor and, if possible, the same version to grantee it will work as is supposed to. I haven't use Adobe InDesign in 10+ years, but I do remember, even in a DTP Pro application and "industry standard" like this one is considered to be, running into issues as what you describe here, after upgrading from one version to another.

4. Free fonts from random websites can be unreliable. Usually this fonts have issues and short comings, hence why professionals don't use the much. It doesn't matter if it is OTF or TTF (with OTF capabilities, as most modern TTF's are). Keep that in mind when you use those.

5. What Jessi says is truth. MS always makes sure they leave undocumented stuff that will give them an edge, and may, as they have done in the past, make arbitrary changes, out of the blue, to break compatibility with their competitors, as they have done many times in the past. The document foundation has documented this case.

Is SMO 100% seamless with MS Office? No. Not even MS Office is between itself. Does SMO do a good job, even better than LibreOffice in many cases? Yes.

This is simply the case of using the wrong format and the not optimal tool for the job.

[Jossi]

It is true that even different versions of MS Word are not entirely consistent in this respect. It is also true that using a full-fledged DTP program to prepare print publications will produce better results. However, just for a practical solution to the problem: If the manuscript's content is final and only formatting remains, why send the final formatted document back as a .docx file? PDF is the preferred format for such a task: the formatting remains stable and there are no compatibility issues. Amazon KDP accepts PDF file uploads for printing (for ebooks, EPUB is better anyway).

[lgsl]

It is true that even different versions of MS Word are not entirely consistent in this respect. It is also true that using a full-fledged DTP program to prepare print publications will produce better results. However, just for a practical solution to the problem: If the manuscript's content is final and only formatting remains, why send the final formatted document back as a .docx file? PDF is the preferred format for such a task: the formatting remains stable and there are no compatibility issues. Amazon KDP accepts PDF file uploads for printing (for ebooks, EPUB is better anyway).

Yes, you are correct. I forgot to mention that.

[Woody44]

2. While word processors can be use to create layouts with a moderate complexity, is not their main purpose. Making layouts for books in a word processor is simply madness. Hence the existence of DPT programs and why professionals use this instead word processors. DTP gives you better tools that allows for better control over layout, text and images. What a word processor offers you is basic in comparison. I have bought several books published using KDP and I can always tell when they were layout with a word processor. They always look unfinished and unrefined.

The industry standard for "typesetting" books is Adobe InDesign. That's fine for professional graphic artists, but the world is full of authors and would-be authors whose books will never be accepted by an established, traditional publishing house. These authors now have the option of self-publishing their books through services such as Amazon KDP, Barnes & Noble Press, Lulu, and others. But Adobe InDesign is obscenely expensive, it is available only by subscription, and it has a relatively steel learning curve. The average "indie" (independent) author can't afford either the cost of InDesign or the learning curve.

Microsoft Publisher, which I have, is entirely unsuited to doing books. Affinity Publisher used to be more affordable than InDesign, and is now free (from Canva). Like InDesign, it has a steep learning curve. Authors would rather spend their time writing than learning to use software they might actually need only once or twice in a year (or a decade, depending on how fast they write).

[quotee]4. Free fonts from random websites can be unreliable. Usually this fonts have issues and short comings, hence why professionals don't use the much. It doesn't matter if it is OTF or TTF (with OTF capabilities, as most modern TTF's are). Keep that in mind when you use those.[/quote]

The same issue occurs with fonts from "name" typehouses.

5. What Jessi says is truth. MS always makes sure they leave undocumented stuff that will give them an edge, and may, as they have done in the past, make arbitrary changes, out of the blue, to break compatibility with their competitors, as they have done many times in the past. The document foundation has documented this case.

I don't dispute that Microsoft plays fast and loose with "standards." They always have. Recognizing that fact does nothing to alleviate what is a very real problem. SoftMaker Office advertises "seamless document exchange" but doies not provide seamless document exchange.

This is simply the case of using the wrong format and the not optimal tool for the job.

Welcome to the real world. There are thousands, possibly millions, of self-published authors around the world who format their books for print using whatever word processor they have. Many are in co-author teams of two or three people, so the file (or files) get passed back and forth regularly. Once the project reaches the final layout stage, it is crucial that formatting be maintained.

[Woody44]

It is true that even different versions of MS Word are not entirely consistent in this respect. It is also true that using a full-fledged DTP program to prepare print publications will produce better results. However, just for a practical solution to the problem: If the manuscript's content is final and only formatting remains, why send the final formatted document back as a .docx file? PDF is the preferred format for such a task: the formatting remains stable and there are no compatibility issues. Amazon KDP accepts PDF file uploads for printing (for ebooks, EPUB is better anyway).

Authors expect to do a final check on their book before uploading. Like most people who format books for other writers, I provide both a PDF and the .docx file. No matter how many times people look at a manuscript and how many people look at it, there are almost always things that get missed. On one book I'm formatting on an incremental basis for an author friend, the manuscript is up to chapter 25. Over the holiday weekend I happened to be looking at the prologue, and I saw a typographical error that has been there for several months.

I missed it. He missed it. His editor missed it. It happens. If the author spots a last minute correction that needs to be made, it should not be necessary for him/her to send the entire file back to me (or whoever is doing the final layout) to correct a single typo and generate a new PDF when the author has Word and can make the change him/herself.