W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 1997

Re: Current Downloadable Font Status....

From: Clive Bruton <clive@typonaut.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 97 14:36:32 +0100
To: Brad Chase <www-font@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <872257157.1213434.1@[]>
Brad Chase wrote at 21/8/97 11:10 pm

>This lets you use the fonts installed on your
>system when publishing electronically, much as other technologies let
>you print using the same fonts. 

So printing a flat "one use" piece of paper is the same thing as 
distributing a digital file with "fonts" (which are held in the cache 

If that's the case why do we need TrueDoc at all, we may as well 
distribute the originals?

Either you accept that PFRs are fonts or they're non-reusable resources, 
they can't be both.

>If you can legally create a printed
>document with TrueDoc, you can legally create an electronic publication.

This is nonsense, when you buy a font you have a licence to use it, that 
usage specifaclly allows print, and specifically disallows "reverse 
engineering", a PFR is a "reversed engineered" font.

Also type design is protected in many countries outside the USA, TrueDoc 
PFRs are by necessity derivative of protected designs. Type designers 
have granted permission to the original font manufacturers to use that 
design, they never granted Bitstream the same rights.

>TrueDoc does not create font files on the viewing system- it images the
>glyphs directly. 

This is rubbish, the PFRs are stored in the Navigator cache folder.

>This provides the best possible output quality and
>protects the font from being copied. Additionally, TrueDoc incorporates
>a security technology we have named DocLock that prevents imaging the
>fonts with any documents except those created by the owner of the web

Tests I have done indicate that this security is "permeable".

>It is true that TrueDoc may not generate output identical to the
>original font engine on the original authoring system. There are a
>number of reasons for this, not the least of which being that TrueDoc
>employs very advanced antialiasing, sub-pixel positioning, and edge
>filtering algorithms to ensure the best possible output quality on a
>variety of video displays. It is not due to any destruction of the
>integrity of the glyph shapes- indeed, in a non-pixelated world there
>would be no discernable difference.

But the point is that you're selling the technology into a "pixelated 
world", where font integrity is paramount, TrueDoc's conversion process 
destroys that integrity. The only reason TrueDoc uses anti-aliasing is to 
try and mitigate the damage done to the font in this process, monotone 
glyphs would be extremely ugly.

I would dispute that in a "in a non-pixelated world there would be no 
discernable difference", anyone wishing to see the resulting vectors can 
view for themselves. I have comparisons between the output and the 
original font, the difference is easily discernable.

-- Clive
Received on Friday, 22 August 1997 09:52:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:44 UTC