W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > April to June 1996

Re[4]: Why TrueDoc?

From: <glen@met.bitstream.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 96 10:37:26 est
Message-Id: <9602318282.AA828297341@met.bitstream.com>
To: www-font@w3.org
     


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: Why TrueDoc?
Author:  www-font@w3.org at huxleypo
Date:    3/31/96 8:45 AM


On: Wed, 04 Apr 96 18:33:02 est    
glen@met.bitstream.com wrote:
     
>     Intellectual property rights have to be protected on the internet. 
>     Bitstream TrueDoc technology is the ONLY font technology that protects 
>     those rights while expressing the image that the fonts were intended 
>     to produce.
     
This statement seems to me an oxymoron. Glen, do you contend that A) TrueDoc 
protects font designers by freely distributing a high quality functional 
equivalent of their work, or B) TrueDoc  protects font designers by freely 
distributing a poor quality functional equivalent of their work?

You obviously know very little about TrueDoc functionality or quality. The 
problem that is being addressed is to express electronically what has been 
traditionally placed on paper, with high quality. You cannot rip-off TrueDoc 
easily (unlike embedded TrueType). So...Yes designers are protected. As far as 
quality, you should install the Envoy plugin for Netscape and view some same 
Envoy files!!!
     
I believe that statement B is a more accurate representation, but in either case
the choice of distribution has been removed from the designer and given to the 
document creator. How is this better than leaving the embedding choice to the 
designer?

Designers are in control of how they build a font, and the status of if the font
can be embedded. Bitstream, Agfa, Microsoft, and Apple and other font foundaries
participated in the definition of the status bits for embedability (refer to 
fsType in the Microsoft TrueType font specification). Program portions of fonts 
especially the hints have the same status as software programs which is the 
central point!!! You can not embed fonts unless the creator has given you those 
rights!! You can use the results of executing the program, which is what TrueDoc
does, to capture the image and use it to image a document. UNDERSTAND??  Or are 
you in favor of technologies that are LOSSLESS and more su, uses font 
sub-stitutes, or defaults to a Multiple-Master!!!

Bitstream provides a high quality solution that will inspire others to buy the 
real font.  

Furthermore, not all fonts are embeddable!! And what about Type1 fonts which are
used almost exclusively by high-end graphic art designers?? They are clearly 
NOT embeddable for use on the internet because of lack of status bits, which 
further influenced the design concepts of TrueDoc!!!  

TrueDoc is the ONLY internet font solution that was designed from the bottom up 
to solve the problem of high quality font imaging for all fonts!!!
 
     
>     As far as quality, TrueDoc provides indistinguishable quality or 
>     better in the case of poorly designed fonts.
     
Oh joy! TrueDoc will improve upon my designs! I think what you meant to say here
is that it will improve upon the hinting of poorly hinted fonts. Of this I have 
no doubt. But to make this statement, you must concede that for the highest 
quality TrueType fonts (the only kind I care to make) the conversion which 
TrueDoc makes will be inferior to the original. Could you please explain once 
more how this is a service to us type designers? 
Yes- MonoType provides excellent quality fonts!!! We all hope that publishers 
understand that they must BUY the fonts and not be tempted to use utilities that
install embedded fonts permanently!!! 
     
And as far as the legality of what TrueDoc is doing, I find it highly suspect. 
How is the use of TrueDoc any different from, oh... lets say taking some of your
Bitstream fonts, converting them from PS to TT (or TT to PS) with Fontographer, 
and embedding those new instantiations in the document? 
If you could read about the proper use of Fontographer you will be more 
informed.
     
Don't tell me. You already addressed this back on 3/29 in a different post to 
this group...
>   It doesn't even access the original
>   font files themselves.  Instead, TrueDoc captures the character shapes 
>   that result from executing the fonts
     
So are you saying TrueDoc wraps outlines around rasterized bitmap images, or 
that it converts the outlines by accessing the Type 1 or TrueType rasterizer, 
rather than reading the font data directly from the disk. I find it unlikely 
that you are attempting the former. In the case of the latter, if you are ever 
reading font data, whether it is from disk or from the rasterizer, you are more 
than likely infringing upon my copyright of the digitized representations of my 
typeface designs. How can you suggest that the automatic conversion and free 
distribution of my font data is ethical, let alone legal?

     Thomas... Rather than using this forum to become educated, you could 
     have just called. Let me suggest that you review the findings of the 
     legal cases surrounding fonts and copyrights, think about all font 
     formats and the alternatives, and then we should talk further.  
     
Inquisitively yours,
     
Thomas Rickner
Monotype Typography Inc
tomr@ny.monotypeusa.com
     
Disclaimer- The thoughts expressed here are my own, and do not represent those 
of my employer. 
     
Received on Friday, 5 April 1996 10:54:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:29 UTC