W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Merits and deficiencies of EOT Lite

From: karsten luecke <list@kltf.de>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:57:01 +0200 (MEST)
Message-Id: <200907282257.n6SMv1KF023237@post.webmailer.de>
To: www-font@w3.org
John Daggett wrote:
> This and other problems with Windows GDI rendering of CFF fonts
> affects all browsers. We could all switch to something else
> just as Safari gives users the option, not on by default, to
> render using Apple's own font rasterizer.

This were indeed ideal.
(If Apple's own rasterizer is not on by default in Win-Safari, that's a pity.)

> It would be far better for all involved to fix the default
> platform rendering issues.

If rendering means rasterization, then I see the problem that different OS-makers follow different "philosophies" as to what "good" rasterization is. This is evident if one compares type in Windows and OSX. It would not be too bad if individual applications came up with their own solutions, just to offer some more alternatives and thus choices -- on the same OS I mean.

Karsten
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 23:04:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:03 GMT