- From: Brad Chase <bchase@bitstream.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 14:24:52 -0400 (EDT)
- To: chris@w3.org
- CC: Chris Wilson <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>, "'Todd Fahrner'" <todd@lowbrow.com>, www-style@w3.org, www-font@w3.org
OK, time for Bitstream to throw in it's $.02.... I'll stay away from all the anti-aliased versus delta hinted stuff except to say that the end result depends highly on (a) the font in question, (b) the quality of the anti-aliasing algortihm, and (c) personal preference. And, just to keep the record straight, it is possible to reproduce the delta-hinted bitmaps using TrueDoc, if that is what the document author desires. Extensis BeyondPress currently supports this ability. Chris Lilley wrote: > Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > BTW, IE's downloadable font implementation is a strict subset of > what CSS2 > > defines for Fonts. We didn't pick that syntax randomly - it came > straight > > from the WebFonts Working Draft (http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-font), > which both > > Microsoft and Bitstream had a hand in developing. (Todd, I know > that you > > know this; this was for others' benefit.) It does, though the current implementation does not expose the @font-face informaiton in the document object model (at least not as far as I can tell), not does it support the kind of plug-in extensibility for rendering the would allow the @font-face rule to reach it's full potential. I believe that Netscape is going to add @font-face support in 5.0. I hope that Microsoft can provide the plug-in capability for rendering. Then document authors can get back in the drivers seat... As an interesting side note to all of this, as big a fan as I am of @font-face, I think the use of LINK and FONT FACE may very well be here to stay-- at least for a while. Many embedded developers would like to have access to the fonts but are not enthused about having to spend the memory to implement CSS. > > However, TrueDoc is now usable in Internet Explorer > > >through an ActiveX control.[1] How do you and your readers like > ActiveX? > > >You have to embed the control in the HTML of every page you want to > use > > >TrueDoc in - can't specify it in the stylesheet and have done. True enough. However, you could put the LINKs, the OBJECT for the ActiveX, and the reference to the stylesheet all in a JavaScript file and accomplish the same thing. (I agree that things will be better when it can all be done via the stylesheet, but all that was a DRAFT- not to be implemented- until today.) > > >Unfortunately, Netscape (the TrueDoc implementor) doesn't implement > enough > > >CSS to let you embed fonts through CSS. You still have to muck > around in > > >the HTML, against the recommendations of the HTML 4.0 > Specification. NS 4.0 does support CSS font markup. You do NOT have to use FONT FACE. Many authoring tools do not support CSS yet, that's true. But it's pretty easy to work around-- if you've been to truedoc.com and looked at the source, you'll find a fair amount of stuff done with CSS. (Like all of the test drive.) NS 4.0 does not support the (at the time of release) DRAFT @font-face rule. If they don't clean it up in 5.0, then we yell at 'em. ;-) > > I could probably convince our typography team to assist > > anyone who wanted to implement OpenType embedding in Mozilla as > well. I'm > > sure you can imagine why I can't offer to do it myself. ;^) > > That assistance would include help with the necessary licensing of the > > Microtype Express technology from Agfa? We could do it if we had the rights to the software at both ends. > > presuming you didn't want to insert the TrueDoc ActiveX control in > your > > pages. If you're going to build two copies of the font anyway, you > can use > > the CSS2 syntax IE4 uses for the EOT file, and the META syntax Nav > uses - > > neither will interfere with each other. > > Actually they will. Not the meta syntax per se, which is harmless > (although the hxburned attribute inserted by Hexmac Typograph is > non-standard) but the fact that you need to have font face tags all > over > your HTML, which has several problems: As mentioned above, this is incorrect. You can use CSS1 for everything. The only divergence is the LINK vs. the CSS2 @font-face. And you can put this all in a single JavaScript file that you load by reference. Nope, it's not a perfect world. (Being heavily involved in web site production at the moment, I can attest to THAT!) But, you can get it to work pretty well now, and with a lttle teamwork, I think it's gonna get better. Brad Chase Bitstream Inc. bchase@bitstream.com
Received on Tuesday, 12 May 1998 14:34:30 UTC