- From: Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 17:49:00 +0200 (MET)
- To: Art Pollard <pollarda@hawaii.edu>, www-font@w3.org
On Aug 18, 5:22am, Art Pollard wrote: > I am wondering what the status is of downloadable font technology. Of > course, I read the page at W3.org but, the most recent information is the > press releases from about a year ago (or a bit more). Guilty. I haven't maintained the public pages (which point out from W3 to the rest of the world) at all; I have been busy working on specifications rather than maintaining links to other stuff. Ignore that page. Now I have been prodded, I will replace it with something useful as time permits. Instead, try looking at the Web Fonts draft http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-font This represents work that has been carried out over the last year by the W3C Font and CSS Working Groups, whose members included Netscape, Bitstream, Microsoft, Agfa, Adobe, HP and others. > Apparently, Netscape and M$ seem to have two conflicting proposals. No, what they have are two partial implementations of the above draft. They use different font formats, true. That isn't a problem, any more than one browser understanding JPEG and the other GIF is a problem. The spec lets you write a stylesheet with links to multiple font formats, if required. > Of > the two, I suspect that M$'s will be available sooner and Netscape's will > be better designed. (What's new?) Care to share the grounds for your suspicions? And actually Netscape shipped a little before Microsoft in this instance, and both are available now. > Does W3 have their own system which is being put together? Yes and no. Yes, there is a W3C spec. No it isn't "their own system" as distinct from what Netscape and Microsoft are doing. Instead, it is exactly what Netscape and Microsoft and the other W3C members have been designing, and which Netscape and Microsoft have initial implementations of. > Are there any > sources available? What is the current status of Web font technology? Improving. In terms of font usage, the current state is the CSS1 specification. This gives fine control over fonts, but selects them by name from the client system. If it ain't installed, you get the next font in the list. In terms of font specification, for on-the-fly synthesis, intelligent matching and dynamic download, the Web Fonts draft is the current status. In terms of font design for online usage, the fonts of various screen-oriented designers who are seeing past the print-oriented WYSIWYG mentality is the current state of the art. In terms of font rendering, hinted anti-aliased greyscale rendering to generate an alpha map which composits the foreground color (or image) against the background color (or image) is the current state of the art; the font smoothing technology in the Windows95 plus pack (on Win32), SmoothType 1.3 (on the Mac), the Bitstream anti-aliased TrueType, Type1 and TrueDoc renderers, the BeOS font display system and the Archimedes RISCOS font system are the current state of the commercial art. There are also freeware Type1 and TrueType rendering engines out there; I don't have the references handy right now. In terms of font formats for online use, OpenType, TrueType GX and Type1CID have the most impressive capabilities, with TrueDoc PFR and Agfa Microtype Express ("embedded opentype) being the current favourite delivery formats. -- Chris Lilley, W3C [ http://www.w3.org/ ] Graphics and Fonts Guy The World Wide Web Consortium http://www.w3.org/people/chris/ INRIA, Projet W3C chris@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 93 65 79 87 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Monday, 18 August 1997 11:49:13 UTC