W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 1996

Re: the alternative?

From: Martin J Duerst <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:53:46 +0200 (MET DST)
To: young@cs.purdue.edu (Michal Young)
Cc: i-simond@microsoft.com, www-font@w3.org
Message-ID: <"josef.ifi..258:23.07.96.08.53.56"@ifi.unizh.ch>
Michal Young wrote:

>Users won't tolerate bitmap
>fonts (you can make them fast enough, or good enough, but not both), they
>won't tolerate schemes with indirection to a vendor font server (for both
>performance and convenience reasons), they won't tolerate font substitution
>(or so the experience with pdf suggests).

Why shouldn't bitmap fonts be fast enough? With a little bit of ingenuity,
you can cache fonts in regularly requested sizes at the server (in the way
TeX/Metafont do it, namely that a font at a given resolution is calculated
when needed, but then not thrown away), at the client site, and maybe
on the way between them (e.g. Newzealand uses a countrywide cache).
For most sizes, you don't have to differentiate between 72dpi and 75dpi.

Regards,	Martin.
Received on Friday, 23 August 1996 04:54:22 UTC

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