- From: Ian K Tindale <ianktindale@easynet.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 18:11:11 +0000
- To: www-style@w3.org
The problem remains that if I don't have that particular font on my Mac at the time, but I happen to have something so similar that it would easily do the job, there isn't an intelligent way of it substituting down through families on similarity - suitability for a purpose. Most normal fonts are reasonably similar to each other, from a cursory appearance point of view, when you consider what people are presently used to on the web - a choice of one font all the time, whichever one you select in the browser preferences. However, the names are SO different that they may as well be specifying different subsubspecies of animal, vegetable and fungi. I might have for example, an Adobe font, a Bitstream font of the same typeface, a TrueType of some extra members of same family, and who knows what else, but with distinctly different names - as an artist I know they're the same, and I know which printer fonts link to which screen fonts - but a name searching system is going to be more cumbersome and less intuitive. Shame there isn't a way of a browser assessing what fonts are present on the system, and giving each known font a 'quality'. Then the style sheet can pick the best match, which could still be miles away, but it's the nearest available visual match on that system. OTOH, how much of an overhead is the actual downloading of the intended screen font, along with the document? Ian K Tindale http://www.idg.co.uk/backyard/ikt/
Received on Wednesday, 31 January 1996 13:11:26 UTC