- From: <lee@sq.com>
- Date: Sun, 11 Aug 96 15:02:51 EDT
- To: boo@best.com, www-font@w3.org
> From: Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com> > Here's my question: Are there people who feel same-metric MM fonts are not > sufficient for substituting when the actual font is not on the user's system? They are sufficient only if they are freely available, along with the rendering technology. Otherwise, you end up with web pages that can't be printed by people using browsers other than Netscape and Microsoft Internet Explorer. NCSA Mosaic is still used :-), along with other browsers. There also needs to be support on a wide range of platforms -- not just Mac and Windows. The Web has in the past been as near to universally accessible as we've ever managed in the history of computing. It does better than un-marked-up ASCII (headings & emphasis marked) for a blind or partially-sighted reader, for example, and can be used on more platforms than PDF (which has its place, by the way) or RTF or any other format. So I think that _availability_ of a solution is very important. I know that this is something Tim B-L has spoken strongly about in the past, as have many others at the W3C & elsewhere, and I think rightly. Lee -- Liam Quin, SoftQuad Inc | lq-text freely available Unix text retrieval lee@sq.com +1 416 239 4801 | FAQs: Metafont fonts, OPEN LOOK UI, OpenWindows SGML: http://www.sq.com/ |`Consider yourself... one of the family... The barefoot programmer | consider yourself... At Home!' [the Artful Dodger]
Received on Sunday, 11 August 1996 15:03:30 UTC