- From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:31:04 +0100
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Dave Crossland wrote: > > In both cases, using the one with the newest date or the largest > number isn't useful, because it is not what the designer intended, > which is always the web font, so that should always be the primary > choice. I say the rationale for IE's approach is presumptuous. Taking designer in a more general sense than visual artist, I think you will actually need to have mechanisms to signal the designer's intent. One time, when I played with EOT fonts, it was to provide a subset of a Windows Chinese font that is an optional download for Windows 98 and and optional install for Windows XP. I would have preferred the resident font to be used both for bandwidth reasons and to avoid the temporary display of missing glyph boxes (what to do before a font loads hasn't been discussed here). In the end, I compromised, by renaming the subset font and making it second choice. If I remember correctly, I didn't save on bandwidth, but I did get fast rendering on systems that did have the font. (There was another time when I thought that appearance was much more important, and I did make a downloaded Arphic font the first choice. I would still have been quite happy to use a pre-installed one, but didn't think the likelihood of it being pre-installed sufficient to justify using the above tactics.) A more difficult variation of this might be trying to serve Euro's to Windows 98 without upgraded fonts. In that case, you might want the resident font to be used where possible and be backfilled with the additional characters from the download. (I use this because it is a case where I know that a resident font got upgraded with additional characters, however it also true that Windows 98 is still in use.) Even when the difference is only aesthetic, designers, in the general sense, need to consider rendering time and bandwidth, so may well prefer to use a resident even if it differs slightly from the version that they would download. If exact reproduction is essential, HTML/CSS is not the optimum tool. With a proper set of hints, users should be able to override them so as prefer faster download, or to prefer more faithful rendition. -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Sunday, 20 April 2008 09:31:54 UTC