How can I use KOMA-Script along with the package mathbbol
?
%\documentclass{article} % works
\documentclass{scrartcl} % fails
\usepackage{mathbbol}
\usepackage{pdfx} % just to calm PDF/A-validators a bit
\begin{document}
\thispagestyle{empty}
$\scriptstyle\mathbb{E}$
\end{document}
pdflatex
(TeX Live 2019 on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS) does not report any error or warning.
However, both veraPDF and Acrobat's Preflight complain about one and the same font inconsistency.
veraPDF states
<validationReport profileName="PDF/A-1B validation profile" statement="PDF file is not compliant with Validation Profile requirements." isCompliant="false">
<details passedRules="102" failedRules="1" passedChecks="398" failedChecks="1">
<rule specification="ISO 19005-1:2005" clause="6.3.6" testNumber="1" status="failed" passedChecks="0" failedChecks="1">
<description>For every font embedded in a conforming file and used for rendering, the glyph width information in the font dictionary and
in the embedded font program shall be consistent.</description>
<object>Glyph</object>
<test>renderingMode == 3 || isWidthConsistent == null || isWidthConsistent == true</test>
<check status="failed">
<context>root/document[0]/pages[0](5 0 obj PDPage)/contentStream[0](7 0 obj PDContentStream)/operators[11]/usedGlyphs[0](ZCDUID+BBOLD7 69 0 0)</context>
</check>
</rule>
</details>
</validationReport>
and Acrobat's Preflight says
List of glyph width mismatches (PDF data versus embedded font data)
649.3 versus 676.593 (676.593/1000)
FontForge confirms the width (676 where "Em Size" is 1000) of BBOLD7 in the PDF and RUPS (or $EDITOR) effectively shows
<< /Type /Font /FirstChar 69 /LastChar 69 /Widths [649.3] … >>
What is the trigger for this inconsistency?
The package pdfx
seems to not affect this issue.
The issue vanishes if the class article
is used,
or \scriptstyle
or \mathbb
is removed,
or the package mathbbol
is replaced with amssymb
.
mathalpha
, orunicode-math
?