Embedded Fonts
HawkEye
I am setting up a website for a local group and they wanted a particular
font for the site. In order to do this I used MS' WEFT tool and their
embedded font system (I didn't know how to do the Netscape variant). So
the question - Mozilla does not work with MS' embedded fonts, does it
work with the Netscape variety or are there any plans to try and make
MS' system work with it??
If so are there any projects in progress for making the process of
creating Netscape embedded fonts simpler??
Neil
Henri Sivonen
HawkEye <sun...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> So the question - Mozilla does not work with MS' embedded fonts
Not supported.
> does it work with the Netscape variety
Not supported.
FAQ: http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html#downloadablefonts
--
Henri Sivonen
hsiv...@niksula.hut.fi
http://www.hut.fi/u/hsivonen/
HawkEye
> In article <ajm7qp$od...@ripley.netscape.com>,
> HawkEye <sun...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So the question - Mozilla does not work with MS' embedded fonts
>
>
> Not supported.
>
>
>>does it work with the Netscape variety
>
>
> Not supported.
>
> FAQ: http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html#downloadablefonts
>
Do you know if there are any plans to support them in the future??
Brian Heinrich
netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
If/when there's a standard(ised) way in which to do it. . . .
/b.
--
Mozilla end-user questions should be directed to:
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.general
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.win32
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.mac
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.unix
Note that you need to have SSL enabled and the port set to 563.
Bamm Gabriana
> > Do you know if there are any plans to support them in the future??
>
> If/when there's a standard(ised) way in which to do it. . . .
Somehow I feel that answer is no longer appropriate... :(
Brian Heinrich
netscape.public.mozilla.general and loudly proclaimed:
>> > Thanks for that. It was a well hidden document I didn't see it before.
Now, now. . . .
Bamm Gabriana
> >
> > Somehow I feel that answer is no longer appropriate... :(
>
> Now, now. . . .
Since Pandora's box has been opened, perhaps it is time to
investigate a proper means to implement useful features, that
we can propose as a standard?
Henri Sivonen
HawkEye <sun...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Do you know if there are any plans to support them in the future??
As for many other things, there are open bugs about downloadable fonts
(bug 70132, bug 41250, bug 55194). However, as with many other things,
that doesn't automatically mean that there were any concrete plans about
doing something.
Speculation (just my speculation--not necessarily the opinion of the bug
assignees):
I wouldn't expect Mozilla to get support for downloadable/embedded fonts
of any kind any time soon (if ever).
When Netscape and Bitstream implemented PFR support for Netscape 4.x and
when Microsoft implemented TrueType downloading for IE, many people
thought that the lack of PDF-style font embedding was a real defect of
HTML and that it was vitally important for designers to be able to
transmit their pixel-wise "vision" to the reader.
But do we see embedded fonts being used on notable American and Western
European sites? No. The problems (including download times and copyright
matters) associated with the concept outweigh the marginal benefit of
being able to use a font that the user doesn't already have installed.
Embedded fonts are actually used on sites written in languages that have
been in the past been neglected by browser makers. These sites (for
example some Indian sites) code the text in Latin gibberish and then use
a font that to the computer seems to be a Latin font but has eg.
Devanagari glyphs, so that when the Latin gibberish is rendered with the
font it seems to a human reader to be intelligible text in some
language. The same approach has been also been used for including Greek
letters as math symbols in otherwise Latin-based text.
Obviously, that kind of ad hockery falls apart when Unicode-savvy
browsers come along and render Latin gibberish as Latin gibberish (since
that's what is coded in the file from the Unicode point of view). That's
why the people who one would think to be most in the need of Unicode
support sometimes actually complain about Mozilla's Unicode support.
A *lot* of work has been put into Mozilla's Unicode support. Supporting
downloadable fonts in a cross-platform way would also be a *lot* of work
and would potentially require navigating past a bunch of patents but the
rewards would be small. For the purpose of rendering non-ISO-8859-1
characters Mozilla already provides Unicode support that, in the long
run, is a lot better approach than using pseudo-Latin downloadable fonts.
Sailfish
> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
>> ... many people thought that the lack of PDF-style font embedding was
>> to be able to transmit their pixel-wise "vision" to the reader.
>>
>
.... or at least a news article. I found his explanation, although
verbose, quite enlightening...
--
Best Regards,
Pat
"Surfin' the Net...grappling with the 3rd Wave"
Got a message? Project It!? http://www.projectit.com/
Lancer
> ... many people
> thought that the lack of PDF-style font embedding was a real defect of
> HTML and that it was vitally important for designers to be able to
> transmit their pixel-wise "vision" to the reader.
>
You should write a book.
--
mozillation
http://latinmoz.f2g.net/mozillation/
Lancer
> Lancer wrote:
>
>> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>
>>> ... many people thought that the lack of PDF-style font embedding was
>>> a real defect of HTML and that it was vitally important for designers
>>> to be able to transmit their pixel-wise "vision" to the reader.
>>>
>>
>> You should write a book.
>
>
> .... or at least a news article. I found his explanation, although
> verbose, quite enlightening...
>
>
...O!
I'm afraid you've arrived late.
The people is starting to use big resolutions.
--
mozillation
http://latinmoz.f2g.net/mozillation/