- From: John C Klensin <john+w3c@jck.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 10:43:48 -0400
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- cc: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, www International <www-international@w3.org>
--On Friday, September 13, 2013 15:54 +0200 Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote: >> (1) The common set of fonts that all platform developers or >> packagers have available have decided to include. This set is >> volatile because a new platform could come along and its >> designers could make different choices. But I think it is >> what the original text says. > > 1A) The common set of fonts that many content developers > incorrectly assume is available on all platforms. Well put. And exactly what I was trying to get at in terms of the difficulty with both the original terminology and the suggested replacement. I've seen small-memory, small-disk, netbooks trimmed down to one Latin font and one local (in those cases, Chinese) set. I wasn't able to find out whether that trimming was done by vendors, IT departments, or users. It probably doesn't make any difference, especially since there are a number of "clean up and reduce clutter on your machine" packages around that are quite enthusiastic about eliminating "unused and unneeded" fonts that might even trim the capabilities of much larger systems. I think we need to be very careful about what we assume in this area and what we say about what we assume. best, john
Received on Friday, 13 September 2013 14:44:19 UTC