- From: Bill Hill <billhill@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 96 11:33:10 PST
- To: www-font@w3.org
I agree with Hakon. Scalable fonts are the sensible option. At the risk of starting a religious flame war, TrueType is the best format on screen because it can be hinted for low resolution. So you get the benefits of bit-map and scalable together. The font files are big, but there are ways around that. ---------- From: Hakon Lie <Hakon.Lie@sophia.inria.fr> To: Paul Haeberli <paul@balla.asd.sgi.com> Cc: <www-font@w3.org> Subject: Is this mail list active? Date: Thursday, January 25, 1996 10:14AM Paul Haeberli writes: > Is this mail list active? It's starting up. I count 12 subscribers at this point.. While I have Paul's attention: your WebFonts proposal [1] is interesting. I have one suggestion and one concern. - wouldn't PNG be a better format to base WebFonts on? First, it's politically more correct. Second, you can hide the metainformation inside the PNG-file. - providing bitmap fonts is device-dependent. The selected font may have just the right size on the author's screen, but will not scale to the reader's preferred size or any printer. If we aim for consistent presentations, isn't scalable fonts the only option? [1] http://reality.sgi.com/grafica/webfonts/ Regards, -h&kon Hakon W Lie, W3C/INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis, France http://www.w3.org/People/howcome howcome@w3.org [1] http://reality.sgi.com/grafica/webfonts/ Regards, -h&kon Hakon W Lie, W3C/INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis, France http://www.w3.org/People/howcome howcome@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 25 January 1996 14:30:37 UTC