Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
Yeah, and the user who uses Lynx on Windows 95, I know I know…
No you don't. Those who use Lynx will not be affected by font fall-back
issues. In trying to ridicule my concern for the majority, you seem to fall
back to strawman arguments from the 1990s.
I described the mechanism at work (as did fantasai and D. Baron).
You described font fall back that _should_ take place according to some
recommendations or drafts, not what happens in web browsers in general.
Usually you don't even know if the user has the font activated or
not... :-).
Exactly, with no need for a smiley.
Ah, the limits of web design.
Or the circumstances where designers need to work.
The morale is that fallback fonts are nothing you could count on.
I wonder why you quote my conclusion and its clarifications, when you don't
comment on them at all.
Instead you throw in some CSS code without a word of English to tell what
your point is:
@font-face {
font-family: 'my-font';
src: url(myfont.eot);
src: url(myfont.woff), url(myfont.ttf);
}
That's something completely different, with benefits and issues of its own.
It's not about fallback fonts at all, and to the extent that you use
downloadable fonts successfully, font fallback does not come into the
picture at all.
Yucca
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
A modern OS / browser will do the job for you.
But most users, or (to be cautious) at least a non-negligible share like 40%
of users, seem to be using an OS / browser that in non-modern by your
implicit definition.
p { font-family: font-a, font-b, font-c, serif;}
Gecko, WebKit, Opera, and IE 8+ will look for the glyphs in font-a,
if that doesn't have the coverage [*], the browser looks at font-b,
I'm not sure whether that happens even on those browsers in all situations.
Even if it does, the situation is far from perfect.
The good news for you: your first choice is installed by default on
OS X and Windows Vista +. For Linux, throw in DejaVu Sans
Pardon? Arial Unicode MS is normally distributed along with Microsoft
Office. You might get the impression of distribution with Vista because
quote often a new PC with Vista comes with a pre-installed trial version of
Microsoft Office.
Anyway, Arial Unicode MS is far from universal. Moreover, it is a single
typeface - no italics, no bolding (though browsers may apply algorithmic
italics or bolding to it, with typographically poor results inevitably). But
the problems don't end here.
I specify 'Helvetica
Neue' as the font of choice on OS X; but that font doesn't have
coverage for some romanized characters (e.g ō), I thus specify a
fallback: 'helvetica', that has close-to-the-same metrics look.
That might be a good example in some sense, but it is a fairly limited case.
It may help on OS X platforms, but what would happen in a more typical
situation? The fallback of 'helvetica' is simply ignored. You could use e.g.
font-family: 'Arial Unicode MS', Arial, sans-serif
but what would happen when Arial does not contain glyphs for the characters
needed? Moreover, even Arial Unicode MS might lack them, since different
versions of that font (typeface) come with different character coverage.
Even if you carefully select a fallback font that is compatible with the
primary font (and usually you can't do that very carefully, as the options
are so limited in practice), a mix of fonts tends to produce bad results at
least when a word contains letters from different fonts. For separate
symbols, a mix is not that bad, if the fonts are roughly similar.
The morale is that fallback fonts are nothing you could count on. They may
help at times, but basically you should select the primary font so that it
is suitable for your needs and widely enough available. Depending on the
content and purpose, different compromises need to be made. For example, if
your material contains a large repertoire of special characters, you
probably need to accept the consequence that many users won't see the page
properly (though most can), due to use of a font like Arial Unicode MS.
Jukka
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
On Jul 15, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
A modern OS / browser will do the job for you.
But most users, or (to be cautious) at least a non-negligible share like 40%
of users, seem to be using an OS / browser that in non-modern by your
implicit definition.
Yeah, and the user who uses Lynx on Windows 95, I know I know…
I never claimed that the CSS fall back mechanism provides perfect coverage for
all users.
I described the mechanism at work (as did fantasai and D. Baron).
p { font-family: font-a, font-b, font-c, serif;}
Gecko, WebKit, Opera, and IE 8+ will look for the glyphs in font-a,
if that doesn't have the coverage [*], the browser looks at font-b,
I'm not sure whether that happens even on those browsers in all situations.
Even if it does, the situation is far from perfect.
[...]
I specify 'Helvetica
Neue' as the font of choice on OS X; but that font doesn't have
coverage for some romanized characters (e.g ō), I thus specify a
fallback: 'helvetica', that has close-to-the-same metrics look.
That might be a good example in some sense, but it is a fairly limited case.
It may help on OS X platforms, but what would happen in a more typical
situation? The fallback of 'helvetica' is simply ignored.
Excuse me sir, but I _ explicitly gave an example for OS X only _. I didn't
mention anything what I am doing for other OS.
Even if you carefully select a fallback font that is compatible with the
primary font (and usually you can't do that very carefully, as the options
are so limited in practice), a mix of fonts tends to produce bad results at
least when a word contains letters from different fonts. For separate
symbols, a mix is not that bad, if the fonts are roughly similar.
Usually you don't even know if the user has the font activated or not... :-).
Ah, the limits of web design.
The morale is that fallback fonts are nothing you could count on. They may
help at times, but basically you should select the primary font so that it
is suitable for your needs and widely enough available. Depending on the
content and purpose, different compromises need to be made. For example, if
your material contains a large repertoire of special characters, you
probably need to accept the consequence that many users won't see the page
properly (though most can), due to use of a font like Arial Unicode MS.
@font-face {
font-family: 'my-font';
src: url(myfont.eot);
src: url(myfont.woff), url(myfont.ttf);
}
(abbreviated for simplicity).
Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://l-c-n.com/
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
Philippe Wittenbergh wrote: Usually you don't even know if the user has the font activated or not... :-). This is a little off-topic for CSS-D, but still pertinent, so I hope the question will be acceptable to most : is it possible, using JavaScript or otherwise, to interrogate the DOM to find out which font has actually been used to render an element or a part thereof ? For example, if I write span style=font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Arial Unicode MS', sans-serif Now is the time for all good men Եւ երկիր էր աներևոյթ և անպատրաստ Ἀνδρόνικος Κάλλιστος Thông tin hàng ngày ở Việt Nam 苦相身为女 /span can I then somehow interrogate the DOM to ascertain the actual font used to render each character ? Philip Taylor __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
On 7/13/10 5:07 AM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: Philippe Wittenbergh wrote: What I describe is actually the expected behaviour per CSS 2.1 /3-fonts… OK, even better news :-) Very many thanks. ** Phil. FWIW - That has been my experience with various language fonts--even when (a student) uses a font stack that contains *none* of the glyphs required by the language, all browsers and OS that I used displayed the characters correctly. The only caveat is Windows (xp, at least) which does not have Asian fonts installed by default -- you have to load them from the install disk. Cordially, David -- __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
[css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
If I have a page such as the following :
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd;
html
head
meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=utf-8
titleArmenian test/title
style type=text/css
BODY {font-family : Arial Unicode MS, sans-serif}
/style
/head
body
h1Եւ երկիր էր աներևոյթ և անպատրաստ. և խաւար ի վերայ անդնդոց. և
Հոգի Աստուծոյ շրջէր ի վերայ ջուրց/h1
/body
/html
I have presumably chosen my primary font not only because I feel its
aesthetics are appropriate but also because it supports the necessary
subset of Unicode to correctly display the characters that make up
the page. But if for some reason the visitor's browser does not have
access to (in this case) Arial Unicode MS, and falls back to the
generic sans-serif, there is (as far as I can see) no way of
guaranteeing that the page will still display correctly.
Is there, therefore, in CSS, some way of specifying as a part of the
font fallback sequence that any font selected as a result of fallback
must support a specific subset of Unicode such that the page can be
guaranteed to display correctly provided that such a font does in
fact exist on the visitor's machine ? And is there any way, presumably
using a combination of HTML and CSS, to display a suitable error message
using solely ASCII characters if such a font cannot be found ?
Philip Taylor
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
Hi,
What about using CSS3 web fonts http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fontface/generator
?
Upload the font you want, it will generate all the different types,
link to them using the @fontface thing and bingo - they don't need
that font on their system.
or am I dreadfully mistaken?
BR, CB
On 13/07/2010, at 4:57 PM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
If I have a page such as the following :
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd
html
head
meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=utf-8
titleArmenian test/title
style type=text/css
BODY {font-family : Arial Unicode MS, sans-serif}
/style
/head
body
h1Եւ երկիր էր աներևոյթ և անպատրաստ. և
խաւար ի վերայ անդնդոց. և
Հոգի Աստուծոյ շրջէր ի վերայ ջուրց/h1
/body
/html
I have presumably chosen my primary font not only because I feel its
aesthetics are appropriate but also because it supports the necessary
subset of Unicode to correctly display the characters that make up
the page. But if for some reason the visitor's browser does not have
access to (in this case) Arial Unicode MS, and falls back to the
generic sans-serif, there is (as far as I can see) no way of
guaranteeing that the page will still display correctly.
Is there, therefore, in CSS, some way of specifying as a part of the
font fallback sequence that any font selected as a result of fallback
must support a specific subset of Unicode such that the page can be
guaranteed to display correctly provided that such a font does in
fact exist on the visitor's machine ? And is there any way,
presumably
using a combination of HTML and CSS, to display a suitable error
message
using solely ASCII characters if such a font cannot be found ?
Philip Taylor
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
Chris Blake wrote: Hi, What about using CSS3 web fonts http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fontface/generator ? Upload the font you want, it will generate all the different types, link to them using the @fontface thing and bingo - they don't need that font on their system. or am I dreadfully mistaken? BR, CB Thanks for the suggestion, Chris, but although it is related to the question it doesn't really address the issue of fallbacks. There may be many reasons why I cannot legitimately distribute the font with the web page (certainly true for Arial Unicode MS), so what I am looking for is a way to be able to reliably fall back on a font that the visitor's machine /does/ have, rather than using web fonts per se. ** Phil. __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
On Tuesday 13 July 2010 20:57, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
If I have a page such as the following :
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd; html
head
meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html; charset=utf-8
titleArmenian test/title
style type=text/css
BODY {font-family : Arial Unicode MS, sans-serif}
/style
/head
body
h1Եւ երկիր էր աներևոյթ և անպատրաստ. և խաւար ի վերայ անդնդոց. և
Հոգի Աստուծոյ շրջէր ի վերայ ջուրց/h1
/body
/html
I have presumably chosen my primary font not only because I feel its
aesthetics are appropriate but also because it supports the necessary
subset of Unicode to correctly display the characters that make up
the page. But if for some reason the visitor's browser does not have
access to (in this case) Arial Unicode MS, and falls back to the
generic sans-serif, there is (as far as I can see) no way of
guaranteeing that the page will still display correctly.
Is there, therefore, in CSS, some way of specifying as a part of the
font fallback sequence that any font selected as a result of fallback
must support a specific subset of Unicode such that the page can be
guaranteed to display correctly provided that such a font does in
fact exist on the visitor's machine ? And is there any way, presumably
using a combination of HTML and CSS, to display a suitable error message
using solely ASCII characters if such a font cannot be found ?
Would it help to create a page with all the Unicode chars in the range you are
using and ask who can see how many based on font selections on a per
paragraph basis. For *my* Linux Nimbus Roman No9 L may be a well populated
serif font and Nimbus Sans L as sans serif (dunno i haven't gone into it
that much). You could also get replies from Mac, Windows 7, Vista and XP
users and try for the best combinations. I don't know the maximum fonts you
can have in a CSS fonts list - anyone?
Alternatively, if you are dealing with particularly uncommon glyphs it could
pay to use images of the ones you want instead.
HTH
--
Michael
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
Michael Adams wrote: Would it help to create a page with all the Unicode chars in the range you are using and ask who can see how many based on font selections on a per paragraph basis. For *my* Linux Nimbus Roman No9 L may be a well populated serif font and Nimbus Sans L as sans serif (dunno i haven't gone into it that much). You could also get replies from Mac, Windows 7, Vista and XP users and try for the best combinations. I don't know the maximum fonts you can have in a CSS fonts list - anyone? Thank you for the suggestion, Michael; it is certainly worth listing the more common well populated fonts as you suggest, but it doesn't address the real issue, which /seems/ to be (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary) that the CSS fallback mechanism was formulated at a time when Unicode was not yet prevalent, and does not seem to have evolved to cope with the need to have greater control over the fallback font selected in order to deal with the various character sets that the page uses. Alternatively, if you are dealing with particularly uncommon glyphs it could pay to use images of the ones you want instead. I would prefer not to go that route at all ! ** Phil. __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
On 13/07/2010, at 6:38 PM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: Michael Adams wrote: Would it help to create a page with all the Unicode chars in the range you are using and ask who can see how many based on font selections on a per paragraph basis. For *my* Linux Nimbus Roman No9 L may be a well populated serif font and Nimbus Sans L as sans serif (dunno i haven't gone into it that much). You could also get replies from Mac, Windows 7, Vista and XP users and try for the best combinations. I don't know the maximum fonts you can have in a CSS fonts list - anyone? Thank you for the suggestion, Michael; it is certainly worth listing the more common well populated fonts as you suggest, but it doesn't address the real issue, which /seems/ to be (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary) that the CSS fallback mechanism was formulated at a time when Unicode was not yet prevalent, and does not seem to have evolved to cope with the need to have greater control over the fallback font selected in order to deal with the various character sets that the page uses. it could be seen as racist! Alternatively, if you are dealing with particularly uncommon glyphs it could pay to use images of the ones you want instead. I would prefer not to go that route at all ! haha, how many characters in that language? ** Phil. __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
Chris Blake wrote: On 13/07/2010, at 6:38 PM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: [T]he CSS fallback mechanism was formulated at a time when Unicode was not yet prevalent, and does not seem to have evolved to cope with the need to have greater control over the fallback font selected in order to deal with the various character sets that the page uses. it could be seen as racist! I think that there is a great deal of unintentional racism in the US-English-centric web that we use today, but the last time a group of us tried to raise this as a serious issue within the CSS working group, one of the joint Chairmen had an apoplectic fit, so I have little hope that this will be addressed in the short term, much as I would like it to be. Philip Taylor __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
On Tuesday 13 July 2010 23:02, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: I think that there is a great deal of unintentional racism in the US-English-centric web that we use today, but the last time a group of us tried to raise this as a serious issue within the CSS working group, one of the joint Chairmen had an apoplectic fit, so I have little hope that this will be addressed in the short term, much as I would like it to be. No racism intended from my reply. I was thinking that the OP's question originated in rare mathematical symbols. I recently helped in such an issue on the OpenOffice.org list where the OP wanted to know how to get a R glyph with a slash superimposed on top. No single unicode glyph exists for this but there are a range of glyphs which can overlay others including the slash. Vary rare request. Often with math formulas, browsers produce broken output and it is as much of an issue as languges though less common. In my understanding with languages the user has adequate fonts loaded on their box but the web dev pretty much can only offer sans-serif or serif to them and hope that the box/browser is well set up. __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
Michael Adams wrote: On Tuesday 13 July 2010 23:02, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: I think that there is a great deal of unintentional racism in the US-English-centric web that we use today, but the last time a group of us tried to raise this as a serious issue within the CSS working group, one of the joint Chairmen had an apoplectic fit, so I have little hope that this will be addressed in the short term, much as I would like it to be. No racism intended from my reply. Nor did I infer any; I hope I didn't give the impression that I had. If I did, sincere apologies. ** Phil. __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
On Jul 13, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
I have presumably chosen my primary font not only because I feel its
aesthetics are appropriate but also because it supports the necessary
subset of Unicode to correctly display the characters that make up
the page. But if for some reason the visitor's browser does not have
access to (in this case) Arial Unicode MS, and falls back to the
generic sans-serif, there is (as far as I can see) no way of
guaranteeing that the page will still display correctly.
Is there, therefore, in CSS, some way of specifying as a part of the
font fallback sequence that any font selected as a result of fallback
must support a specific subset of Unicode such that the page can be
guaranteed to display correctly provided that such a font does in
fact exist on the visitor's machine ?
A modern OS / browser will do the job for you. You can specify a fallback font
if your first choice is not available:
p { font-family: font-a, font-b, font-c, serif;}
Gecko, WebKit, Opera, and IE 8+ will look for the glyphs in font-a, if that
doesn't have the coverage [*], the browser looks at font-b, then font-c; if
that fail, it takes the default serif font / or / look for something in the
list of installed fonts that provide coverage.
(and if none exist, you'd get a missing glyph character)
The good news for you: your first choice is installed by default on OS X and
Windows Vista +. For Linux, throw in DejaVu Sans
[*] or the font is not available
Example: on something I work on, text mostly containing Roman/English with
romanized Japanese characters words, I specify 'Helvetica Neue' as the font
of choice on OS X; but that font doesn't have coverage for some romanized
characters (e.g ō), I thus specify a fallback: 'helvetica', that has
close-to-the-same metrics look.
--
note: you could always provide, on an 'about' page or something, a short
explanation / list of required fonts.
One of these days I'll publish an article with my notes on all fallback fonts.
When I beat my laziness or something.
Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://l-c-n.com/
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
Philippe Wittenbergh wrote: A modern OS / browser will do the job for you. [snip] Thank you, Phillipe : a very interesting summary. It is certainly useful to know what the behaviour of most current rendering engines is, but of course unless it is actually enshrined in the specification, one cannot rely on that behaviour. ** Phil. __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
Philippe Wittenbergh wrote: What I describe is actually the expected behaviour per CSS 2.1 /3-fonts… OK, even better news :-) Very many thanks. ** Phil. __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
On 07/13/2010 03:38 AM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: Michael Adams wrote: Would it help to create a page with all the Unicode chars in the range you are using and ask who can see how many based on font selections on a per paragraph basis. For *my* Linux Nimbus Roman No9 L may be a well populated serif font and Nimbus Sans L as sans serif (dunno i haven't gone into it that much). You could also get replies from Mac, Windows 7, Vista and XP users and try for the best combinations. I don't know the maximum fonts you can have in a CSS fonts list - anyone? Thank you for the suggestion, Michael; it is certainly worth listing the more common well populated fonts as you suggest, but it doesn't address the real issue, which /seems/ to be (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary) that the CSS fallback mechanism was formulated at a time when Unicode was not yet prevalent, and does not seem to have evolved to cope with the need to have greater control over the fallback font selected in order to deal with the various character sets that the page uses. I'm not sure what limitation you have in mind. If you list a lot of fonts, the CSS font fallback algorithm will check all of them on a *per character* basis, until it finds one that has the glyph it needs. In some cases, this means the text will be rendered in multiple fonts, because the first font listed had some characters but not others, and the second font had the remaining characters, etc. The last step in the fallback algorithm is for the UA to check its default font for the glyphs. On some OSes, this default font is actually a set of fonts that collectively covers the widest possible range of characters. And the spec explicitly gives the UA permission to use any means it wishes to find an appropriate glyph before falling back to a missing character rendering. http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#algorithm http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-fonts/#font-matching-algorithm If you want to exclude certain characters from a font from ever being matched, then you would need to use an @font-face rule with a unicode-range descriptor. This functionality was part of CSS2, but was removed from CSS2.1 due to lack of implementation, and has been re-introduced for CSS3. Was there something else you wanted? ~fantasai __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
fantasai wrote: Was there something else you wanted? Dear Fantasai : many thanks for demonstrating that I was incorrect in my belief that the font-fallback mechanism has not evolved over time; I am extremely pleased that this is the case. As to whether there is anything else in this area that I would like to see, it will take a little while to read the specifications; once that is done, I will get back to you (and this list) with any further comments. Philip Taylor __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
On Tuesday 2010-07-13 09:57 +0100, Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: Is there, therefore, in CSS, some way of specifying as a part of the font fallback sequence that any font selected as a result of fallback must support a specific subset of Unicode such that the page can be guaranteed to display correctly provided that such a font does in fact exist on the visitor's machine ? As was already pointed out, this is already guaranteed by CSS. I'd like to explain in a drop more detail, though: Font fallback is defined by CSS as being *per character*. In other words, for each character, the implementation is required to find the font that best matches the font-family, font-weight, font-style, etc. This is defined in CSS 2.1: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#algorithm see especially bullet (2) (and for each character in that element), bullet (4) (but it does not contain a glyph for the current character), and bullet (5) (If a particular character ...). So the list given in the font-family property is a list of fonts to be searched for each character in the text that is displayed, and the generic families (explicitly or implicitly at the end of that list) should cover a large set of fonts. Browsers should not display a missing glyph symbol unless there's no font they can access with an appropriate glyph. I suspect that browsers don't actually follow this algorithm to the letter (it's rather hard to test, for a start). However, I think major browsers are generally quite good about finding some usable font, if present, before falling back to a missing glyph symbol. -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
At 8:51 PM +0900 on 07/13/2010, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote about Re:
[css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode:
A modern OS / browser will do the job for you. You can specify a
fallback font if your first choice is not available:
p { font-family: font-a, font-b, font-c, serif;}
Gecko, WebKit, Opera, and IE 8+ will look for the glyphs in font-a,
if that doesn't have the coverage [*], the browser looks at font-b,
then font-c; if that fail, it takes the default serif font / or /
look for something in the list of installed fonts that provide
coverage.
The problem is two fold (in my opinion).
First is that unlike with printing use, there is no Font of Last
Resort fall-back. That support says to use the defined font BUT if
there are glyphs in the text which are not in the font then to
attempt to display them using the FoLR (ie: The only use of the FoLR
glyphs to display the missing codepoints).
The second problem is that there is no way to request that the
fall-back be done ONLY for missing codepoints (similar to the FoLR
support). In your example above, requesting one or more glyphs that
are not in font-a makes the browser try font-b and then font-c until
a font is found that has support for ALL the requested glyphs. If
none contain all the needed glyphs (even though all the glyphs exist
in the combined list of supported glyphs), you get the browser's
default serif with undefined codepoint glyphs for the codepoints
not in the serif font. What I think should be looked into for the
long term is defining a CSS font-x parm that says use font-a to
display those glyphs that it supports (assuming that the font exists
- non-existence is equivalent for this purpose as does not support a
glyph) and fall-back down the list for the remaining glyphs until
every glyph has been displayed by a suggested font or a missing
codepoint glyph gets defaulted to.
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts, fall-backs Unicode
On 07/13/2010 12:45 PM, Bob Rosenberg wrote: The problem is two fold (in my opinion). First is that unlike with printing use, there is no Font of Last Resort fall-back. That support says to use the defined font BUT if there are glyphs in the text which are not in the font then to attempt to display them using the FoLR (ie: The only use of the FoLR glyphs to display the missing codepoints). The second problem is that there is no way to request that the fall-back be done ONLY for missing codepoints (similar to the FoLR support). In your example above, requesting one or more glyphs that are not in font-a makes the browser try font-b and then font-c until a font is found that has support for ALL the requested glyphs. If none contain all the needed glyphs (even though all the glyphs exist in the combined list of supported glyphs), you get the browser's default serif with undefined codepoint glyphs for the codepoints not in the serif font. What I think should be looked into for the long term is defining a CSS font-x parm that says use font-a to display those glyphs that it supports (assuming that the font exists - non-existence is equivalent for this purpose as does not support a glyph) and fall-back down the list for the remaining glyphs until every glyph has been displayed by a suggested font or a missing codepoint glyph gets defaulted to. This is wrong. Font fallback is per-character. See responses from both myself and L. David Baron. ~fantasai __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Philippe Wittenbergh e...@l-c-n.comwrote: In current versions of CSS, you can't manipulate or control those. As I pointed out in my original answer [1], a future version of CSS fonts will have additional properties: My apologies for not paying attention. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-fonts/#font-rend-props Please note (as I said originally), this is the editors draft and subject to change at any moment. It is only a pointer to the current thinking. Thank you. V __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Philippe Wittenbergh e...@l-c-n.comwrote: On Jun 13, 2010, at 10:34 AM, David Laakso wrote: http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-webfonts-20020802/ Note that is a very old draft. The current draft is: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-webfonts/ This is good. Thanks, V __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Victor Subervi victorsube...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Philippe Wittenbergh e...@l-c-n.comwrote:
On Jun 13, 2010, at 10:34 AM, David Laakso wrote:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-webfonts-20020802/
Note that is a very old draft. The current draft is:
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-webfonts/
Actually, this doc, while being good, doesn't have anything at all to do
with my question concerning pantose-1. stemv, stemh, etc. and I still don't
know how to manipulate them to see what they do:
!--
h3 { font-variant: small-caps }
em { font-style: oblique }
--
htmlhead
style type=text/css
.test {
font-size: xx-large;
font-style: normal;
font-variant: small-caps;
font-weight: 600;
line-height: normal;
font-family: Arial;
font-stretch: expanded;
stemv: .5em;
stemh: 1em;
slope: 40;
}
/style
/headbody
span class='test'Hello/span
/body/html
Please advise.
TIA,
Victor
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts
On Jun 17, 2010, at 3:13 AM, Victor Subervi wrote: Actually, this doc, while being good, doesn't have anything at all to do with my question concerning pantose-1. stemv, stemh, etc. and I still don't know how to manipulate them to see what they do: In current versions of CSS, you can't manipulate or control those. As I pointed out in my original answer [1], a future version of CSS fonts will have additional properties: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-fonts/#font-rend-props Please note (as I said originally), this is the editors draft and subject to change at any moment. It is only a pointer to the current thinking. [1] http://archivist.incutio.com/viewlist/css-discuss/111473 Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://l-c-n.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
[css-d] Fonts
Hi; Googled for a tutorial and/or examples (so I can see in action) what happens when one plays around with the values for panose-1, stemh, stemw, slope, cap-height, etc. Got any ideas? TIA, Victor __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts
On Jun 13, 2010, at 3:43 AM, Victor Subervi wrote: Googled for a tutorial and/or examples (so I can see in action) what happens when one plays around with the values for panose-1, stemh, stemw, slope, cap-height, etc. Got any ideas? I don't really understand your question here. Care to clarify ? --- Currently CSS is somewhat limited in the possibilities to access all kind of alternates in OTF fonts. There are some proposals to change that, though, see Chapter 6 of the CSS3 fonts working draft: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-fonts/#font-rend-props (and note, that is currently only in the editor's draft, which means very very subject to change). Jonathan Kew has started working on experimentally implementing this in Gecko http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/10/font-control-for-designers/ Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://l-c-n.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts
Victor Subervi wrote: Hi; Googled for a tutorial and/or examples (so I can see in action) what happens when one plays around with the values for panose-1, stemh, stemw, slope, cap-height, etc. Got any ideas? TIA, Victor The obvious happens. Sometimes. All else takes longer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PANOSE http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-webfonts-20020802/ Best, ~d -- desktop http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts
On Jun 13, 2010, at 10:34 AM, David Laakso wrote: http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-webfonts-20020802/ Note that is a very old draft. The current draft is: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-webfonts/ And I linked to what the editor is working on in my previous message Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://l-c-n.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
[css-d] Fonts in Vista Office 2007
I installed Office 2007 on my box at work and really like some of the new
fonts that came with it.
http://neosmart.net/blog/2006/a-comprehensive-look-at-the-new-microsoft-fonts/
Anyone know if you can buy them separately somewhere? (I really don't need
Office 2007 nor Vista on my Win XP box at home.)
I spent a half hour searching on Microsoft.com and could not find them for
sale alone without buying Vista or Office 2007.
I think I'll start doing...
body {
font-family: Calibri, Arial...
}
but I can't test it locally. :-/
- Geoff
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts in Vista Office 2007
Google is your friend. Google font calibri and you'll find your answer.
Such the second result -- this post:
http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/03/download-windows-vista-fonts-legally.html
From: Geoffrey Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [css-d] Fonts in Vista Office 2007
I installed Office 2007 on my box at work and really like some of the new
fonts that came with it.
http://neosmart.net/blog/2006/a-comprehensive-look-at-the-new-microsoft-fonts/
Anyone know if you can buy them separately somewhere? (I really don't need
Office 2007 nor Vista on my Win XP box at home.)
I spent a half hour searching on Microsoft.com and could not find them for
sale alone without buying Vista or Office 2007.
I think I'll start doing...
body {
font-family: Calibri, Arial...
}
but I can't test it locally. :-/
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts in Vista Office 2007
They are quite nice. See the first several hits on Google: http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=47aid=78683 http://www.hunlock.com/blogs/Downloading_and_Using_Vista_Web_Fonts Will __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts in Vista Office 2007
On 2008/02/05 23:50 (GMT-0500) Geoffrey Hoffman apparently typed:
I installed Office 2007 on my box at work and really like some of the new
fonts that came with it.
http://neosmart.net/blog/2006/a-comprehensive-look-at-the-new-microsoft-fonts/
Anyone know if you can buy them separately somewhere? (I really don't need
Office 2007 nor Vista on my Win XP box at home.)
I spent a half hour searching on Microsoft.com and could not find them for
sale alone without buying Vista or Office 2007.
I think I'll start doing...
body {font-family: Calibri, Arial...}
but I can't test it locally. :-/
Once you get them installed, take a look at
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Font/fonts-msvista.html . Unless you think it a
good thing that Vista Fonts users all see smaller fonts than everyone else,
best to avoid them until all the common web browsers have working
font-size-adjust.
--
For God so loved the world that he gave his one
and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall
not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 NIV
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts in Vista Office 2007
That's rare... The way Microsloth operates I figured you need to buy them. Cheers - On Feb 5, 2008 10:30 PM, Chris Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Google is your friend. Google font calibri and you'll find your answer. Such the second result -- this post: http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/03/download-windows-vista-fonts-legally.html __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts in Vista Office 2007
The best thing (and probably the best thing about Vista in general at the
moment) is that all Windows Vista fonts are OpenType fonts, so theoretically
you could actually embed them in your website.
Embed them with CSS. In the CSS stylesheet- not practical CSS, but at
least it's about CSS now ;o)
F.
- Original Message -
From: Geoffrey Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: css-d css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Sent: 06 February, 2008 6:50 AM
Subject: [css-d] Fonts in Vista Office 2007
I installed Office 2007 on my box at work and really like some of the new
fonts that came with it.
http://neosmart.net/blog/2006/a-comprehensive-look-at-the-new-microsoft-fonts/
Anyone know if you can buy them separately somewhere? (I really don't need
Office 2007 nor Vista on my Win XP box at home.)
I spent a half hour searching on Microsoft.com and could not find them for
sale alone without buying Vista or Office 2007.
I think I'll start doing...
body {
font-family: Calibri, Arial...
}
but I can't test it locally. :-/
- Geoff
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts
Thanks for your post Richard. I get what you are saying about font licenses and I fully understand. The point of having a font accessible by the web would be that it wouldn't have to be installed natively on the machine ( gets rid of that performance hit) and of course you can't download the whole font only the subset of that font. Only the subset that you need and retain the subset like what your OS does with RAM most recently used gets to the top of the stack. As for licenses, the reason that they let you use it in bitmaps is because it is not worth the effort to try to rip a font that way. So whatever measure you take getting that not standard font to the browser for rendering you have to lock it down so that it has similar security. People are going to steal something no matter what even if only for the challenge. As for the firewalls, I'm not sure where your going with that one. If the user requests the font it should come through just fine just like any other file. I am all for people getting money for their work. I hope I get time in the next month or so to get something working. Thanks for your suggestions and comments. If anyone else has any other road blocks or what ifs that's great. They make great requirements and I'm bound to no think of everything. Thanks, Nick On May 31, 2006, at 7:42 PM, Richard Grevers wrote: For starters, the majority of fonts are copyright to the foundries which created them and may not be distributed. The font we use for our branding (Chalet-E) may look like a tweaked Helvetica, but we paid $900 for a license and cannot distribute the font itself, only outlines or bitmaps which use it. Even for more freely available fonts there is often supposed to be an EULA to accept. There are also issues such as: 1) installing excessive numbers of fonts can seriously degrade the performance of some Operating systems or render some applications inoperable. 2) Not all fonts are small: What if someone specifies Arial Unicode MS and you are hit by a 13MB download (Ok, they are an idiot, and that is a copyright violation as you need to have an MS Office license to use that font). 3) Firewalls are going to be a problem. -- Richard Grevers, New Plymouth, New Zealand Hat 1: Development Engineer, Webfarm Ltd. Hat 2: Dramatic Design www.dramatic.co.nz - Nick Morgan | Web Developer | New City Media P: 540.552.1320 x204 F: 540.552.5493 C: 540.921.7835 W: www.newcitymedia.com __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts
Sorry for the delay in this post, I'm sure you thought I gave up but Chris thanks for your post but here's my counter. If you create a movie that only works on 16x9 or needs colour you cannot stop people from watching it on a TV in 4x3 or black and white. Does this mean that we don't produce the 16x9? Using a non standard font is for me the high end video format. For people that want the user experience as it is intended they use it. If they have a different preference they can do so through their user agent. Now whether or not they know how to do that is up to them. BTW, I am not a designer. I just handle the production for the company I work for. So I deal with HTML and CSS everyday all day and enjoy every minute. This is one of the problems I run into over and over. Now I am not advocating people using crazy fonts that decrease readability and I would have to be thoroughly convinced by one of my designers why we should use it as the main text for content. My issue is creating headers and navigation. No matter what you say designers are going to create beautiful headers and navigations that match a company or organizations current branding. Now I am asking for this is because of accessibility. I want designers to be able to push the limits of communication art and still be accessible to every audience. I don't mind that it takes standards so long to come to fruition (ok maybe 5 years is a little much) but it keeps the distractions out. As for the @font-face, thanks Philipee for pointing that out, was this just a poor implementation or did no one know about it? If we don't do something about it, it will just become another plugin that we have to download just like flash, when really it should be part of the standard. Can you create a design that can work with different screen sizes, font sizes and content in several languages and text encodings? Only if you double dog dare me. Yeah I have no problem with this. Let me ask you this: (HEY FELIX!!! This is for you too.) Are the only accessible sites totally text? I would think most CSS gurus would say heck no. We can make beautiful acessible designs. What I am pointing out is an area that needs some serious attention. I want more accessibility! As for control, isn't being limited to use only the standard fonts another form of control. I just want to build the best user experience possible that matches the company or organizations branding that is accessible to everyone. Isn't that the goal? You would think this would be obvious with the shear amount of work- arounds for this that someone would be listening. Philipee, I'm slowly going through the discussion you suggested on this. Sorry for the delay, I have been incredibly busy with production as of late. fun stuff. Later. Nick - Nick Morgan | Web Developer | New City Media P: 540.552.1320 x204 F: 540.552.5493 C: 540.921.7835 W: www.newcitymedia.com __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts
Nicholas Morgan wrote: Thanks Bob for your replay. I just don't get why this is not a priority. Does this mean that no one is going to do anything about this? I think this is a big deal and something that should be worked on as core for every browser. Not solving this problem just costs everyone more money, more time, more bandwidth, less accessibility, etc, etc.. Why doesn't any one care about this? Am I totally off by asking for something like this? Is anyone working on figuring this out? Two points. 1) PLEASE don't quote entire messages. Several thousand subscribers don't need to see the whole thread over and over again. BTW, most of us prefer bottom posting. Both are mentioned in the list policies. 2) Some provision for loadable fonts will be in one of the CSS3 modules. The W3C CSS Working Group (I'm a member) has been discussing this recently. The feature is not yet in any draft, but it is almost certain to occur in some form. As to why it's not a priority, demand drives almost all W3C activity. There are many other things that people have asked for more frequently than downloadable fonts. CSS3 work under construction: http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work.html -- Bob Easton Accessibility Matters: http://access-matters.com __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts
That's great and all but you didn't answer my question. To me this is the same problem that we had without CSS. We used tables and other means to get the designs that we wanted. This is how I interpret what you just told me. We have carefully thought and put together 12 standard t-shirts. They are great t-shirts and everyone on the planet has to pick out of that 12 because we studied what it takes to be a t-shirt and feel that the 12 we have chosen are awesome. The point is to empower designers not to put them in a box. And as much as you try you can't take css and make a font look like another, you just don't have that much control. True it is the same problem: You seem to still want to control what the visitor sees, and this is not what web design is about IMHO. The power of the web is its diversity, you can pick from dozens of different user agents and hundreds of user agent/operating system/ability constellations. The whole font debate IMHO is none: Use your font and use others as fallbacks, ending with a generic font name and the visitors who have the fancy font will see it, others won't but can still read your site. If you want to force a certain font or you want to use a licensed font, use Flash. Web design is about styling and providing content not about providing style and adding some content. Your T-shirt example does not apply. Even if there were only 12 Tshirts people would spray them, tiedye them or sew own stuff on them. But it is the people's choice what to do with them. A Tshirt - like any physical product - has a fixed state at the time you hand it over to the buyer, a web site doesn't as it depends on the user agent and the other technical bits and bobs on the visitor's end, and you cannot guess or determine what that is. If you create a movie that only works on 16x9 or needs colour you cannot stop people from watching it on a TV in 4x3 or black and white. As a music artist you cannot expect people to listen to your songs on high-end playback equipment with headphones instead of a dingy car stereo with one broken speaker. If you feel not empowered enough as a designer have a look into usability or information architecure - a lot to research, test and learn there, but I don't see many people crying for more real data on these matters - instead we work on assumptions most of the time. And that results in web products that annoy rather than offer an enjoyable experience. Or see the diversity of the web as a challenge instead of demanding the CSS specs to change (which is pretty pointless as browser vendors tend to support them with a slight delay of 2-8 years and then it needs users to upgrade). Can you create a design that can work with different screen sizes, font sizes and content in several languages and text encodings? my $,02, chris -- Chris Heilmann Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com Writing: http://icant.co.uk/ Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
[css-d] Fonts
Alright. Issue: No way for use to use more than non-standard fonts. Solutions: Image replacement, auto generate them with scripting, flash.. ewww... None of these are solutions. They are all work-arounds for the problem. I have read through css 2 standard and the font parts of css 3 and this common problem is not addressed. Did I miss it? Is it possible that we can have the browsers load the fonts into memory while viewing the page? Because you can't have the user just download them because there are licenses on fonts. Flash gets around it by encoding the fonts. I know people will hack and get around any method you use but is it possible to have a method that is just hard enough that most people don't care to try. I would love to hear what other people think and have to say about this. If this post is not supposed to go here, I'm sorry I'm new to the list, point me in the right direction. Sorry guys to rant but I have just about had enough of creating these images... Nick - Nick Morgan | Web Developer | New City Media P: 540.552.1320 x204 F: 540.552.5493 C: 540.921.7835 W: www.newcitymedia.com __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts
Nicholas Morgan wrote: Alright. Issue: No way for use to use more than non-standard fonts. The current state of CSS, and standard fonts, is such that there few people in the entire world who have even scratched the surface of what is possible with what is available. Some typographers spend their entire life working with and attempting to understand one font. And some of them are represented among the standard fonts. No need for image replacement, flash. or scripting. There is a grave need for creative people to understand the intrinsic fluidly of the Web, and push the envelope when it comes to typography. There are so many doors yet to be opened with the beauty of CSS creatively combined with standard available fonts. Sorry guys to rant but I have just about had enough of creating these images... Nick Best, ~davidLaakso -- http://www.dlaakso.com/gustave/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts
David, That's great and all but you didn't answer my question. To me this is the same problem that we had without CSS. We used tables and other means to get the designs that we wanted. This is how I interpret what you just told me. We have carefully thought and put together 12 standard t-shirts. They are great t-shirts and everyone on the planet has to pick out of that 12 because we studied what it takes to be a t-shirt and feel that the 12 we have chosen are awesome. The point is to empower designers not to put them in a box. And as much as you try you can't take css and make a font look like another, you just don't have that much control. I appreciate all the time people put into their fonts. I know how much time they take to make. And I think people should be able to use them without hassle on the web. There are thousands of ways to make arial look different but in the end it is still arial. Nick On May 21, 2006, at 2:25 PM, David Laakso wrote: Nicholas Morgan wrote: Alright. Issue: No way for use to use more than non-standard fonts. The current state of CSS, and standard fonts, is such that there few people in the entire world who have even scratched the surface of what is possible with what is available. Some typographers spend their entire life working with and attempting to understand one font. And some of them are represented among the standard fonts. No need for image replacement, flash. or scripting. There is a grave need for creative people to understand the intrinsic fluidly of the Web, and push the envelope when it comes to typography. There are so many doors yet to be opened with the beauty of CSS creatively combined with standard available fonts. Sorry guys to rant but I have just about had enough of creating these images... Nick Best, ~davidLaakso -- http://www.dlaakso.com/gustave/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ - Nick Morgan | Web Developer | New City Media P: 540.552.1320 x204 F: 540.552.5493 C: 540.921.7835 W: www.newcitymedia.com __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts
On May 21, 2006, at 3:31 PM, Nicholas Morgan wrote: I have read through css 2 standard and the font parts of css 3 and this common problem is not addressed. Did I miss it? @font-face isn't what you're looking for ? http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/fonts.html#font-descriptions http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/fonts.html#referencing Is it possible that we can have the browsers load the fonts into memory while viewing the page? Because you can't have the user just download them because there are licenses on fonts. Flash gets around it by encoding the fonts. I know people will hack and get around any method you use but is it possible to have a method that is just hard enough that most people don't care to try. This is only, somehow, implemented by IE windows. It has been dropped out of CSS 2.1, due a lack of interoperability, and the zillions of problems associated with downloadable fonts (copyright issues, security, file size,... and what more). The CSS WG has opened a discussion on this very topic http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Apr/0070.html 'Downloadable fonts and image replacement' http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Apr/thread.html Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.com __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts
On 06/05/21 15:34 (GMT-0400) Nicholas Morgan apparently typed: There are thousands of ways to make arial look different but in the end it is still arial. Or is it? http://www.ms-studio.com/articles.html -- All have sinned fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
[css-d] Fonts and Site Check Please
Hi Guys I done a redesign on a site: http://www.swmug.co.uk/ The css is embeded. Please could you check that it works in all Windows and Linux browsers. Thanks. Additionally, I have used Papyrus as a font but I believe it is exclusively Mac. Is there a Windows equivalent please? I can't find anything. Thanks Rich http://www.cregy.co.uk So here's what I want you to do, God helping you: Take your everyday, ordinary life--your sleeping, eating, going-to-work, and walking-around life--and place it before God as an offering. Embracing what God does for you is the best thing you can do for him. Romans 12 v 1 __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts and Site Check Please
Richard Brown wrote:
http://www.swmug.co.uk/
The css is embeded. Please could you check that it works in all
Windows and Linux browsers.
Opera 8.5 and IE6 need:
.square .boxcontent {padding-top: 1px;}
...or you'll have to zero out margin-top on form.
Menu doesn't tolerate any font-resizing.
#menu a, #menu a:visited {width: auto;}
...will work slightly better, but that menu will cause float-drop quite
early in IE6 - starting around window-width 830.
No limits and repeating background doesn't look too well IMO
body {background: #fdf2ca url(parchmeo.jpg) no-repeat; max-width:
1200px; min-width: 760px;}
...works better, I think. Not much use in 'max/min-width' in IE6 though.
FF 1.5b1 doesn't stretch body-background for full screen-height when fed
'text/xml'. Ok as 'text/html'.
Additionally, I have used Papyrus as a font but I believe it is
exclusively Mac. Is there a Windows equivalent please? I can't find
anything.
Well, I have Papyrus on win2K, and it looks somewhat similar, but not
identical, to the Mac variant. Wouldn't rely on its widespread use though.
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts and Site Check Please
Richard Brown a écrit : Hi Guys I done a redesign on a site: http://www.swmug.co.uk/ The css is embeded. Please could you check that it works in all Windows and Linux browsers. Thanks. Additionally, I have used Papyrus as a font but I believe it is exclusively Mac. Is there a Windows equivalent please? I can't find anything. Thanks Rich http://www.cregy.co.uk So here's what I want you to do, God helping you: Take your everyday, ordinary life--your sleeping, eating, going-to-work, and walking-around life--and place it before God as an offering. Embracing what God does for you is the best thing you can do for him. Romans 12 v 1 __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ Hi Rich, Papyrus isn't exclusively Mac: http://www.fonts.com/findfonts/detail.htm?pid=203883 So far I'm a beginner in css and just can say your site looks great. Have a nice day. Eric. __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts and Site Check Please
Richard Brown wrote: I done a redesign on a site: http://www.swmug.co.uk/ The css is embeded. Please could you check that it works in all Windows and Linux browsers. Thanks. Additionally, I have used Papyrus as a font but I believe it is exclusively Mac. Is there a Windows equivalent please? I can't find anything. Rich Rich, Sorry to be a pain, but: I regret the layout is not working well for you with font-zoom. The containers expand horizontally and overlap. Running text over an image is problematic. The text-expands vertically breaking out at the bottom of the image on zoom. This liquid 3 column liquid layout http://www.alistapart.com/articles/negativemargins may work better for you. It works well cross-browser (consider reducing that nice 1100px+ map image to approx 300px wide and putting in the header). I regret that Papyrus is available in XP(grin). Typography is about making the written word readable. Perhaps Papyrus for the logo (falling back on georgia, tnr, times, serif). And georgia, tnr, times, serif-- for everything else? (You've used an id more than once on the page-- validate the markup). Best, ~dL *Typography exists to honor content.* — Robert Bringhurst -- David Laakso http://www.dlaakso.com __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts
On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:55:03 -0400, Richard Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi I have a client who has asked me if I can do the site in Eurostile. I explained to him about fonts needing to be on the receiving computer. Is this correct? Whilst thinking of fonts could someone direct me to a site that lists the standard web fonts and how to display them? Thanks Rich Good place to start: All you wanted to know about Web type but were afraid to ask -Joe Gillespie http://www.wpdfd.com/editorial/wpd0704news.htm#feature Best, David Laakso -- http://www.dlaakso.com/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
RE: [css-d] Fonts
original question I have a client who has asked me if I can do the site in Eurostile. I explained to him about fonts needing to be on the receiving computer. Is this correct? reply There is a way to embed the font in to the website, but I have no idea how to do it. It's done at http://chris.pirillo.com/ if anyone knows how Chris did this? Joanne __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
RE: [css-d] Fonts
There is a way to embed the font in to the website, but I have no idea how to do it. It's done at http://chris.pirillo.com/ if anyone knows how Chris did this? It appears that it only works in IE, even though it's part of the CSS 2 spec... Chris uses @font-face in his style sheet to load a custom font description and character map. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/fonts.html#font-descriptions http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/fontembed/font_embed.asp Jon __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Fonts
On 5/25/05, Joanne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
original question
I have a client who has asked me if I can do the site in Eurostile. I
explained to him about fonts needing to be on the receiving computer.
Is this correct?
reply
There is a way to embed the font in to the website, but I have no idea how
to do it. It's done at http://chris.pirillo.com/ if anyone knows how Chris
did this?
via
@font-face {
font-family: Chris Pirillo;
font-style: normal;
src: url(/images/CHRISPI1.eot);
}
http://www.richinstyle.com/guides/fontface2.html
http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/css/syntax/atrules/fontface.htm
--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
RE: [css-d] Fonts
From: Joanne There is a way to embed the font in to the website, but I have no idea how to do it. There were two competing methods (aren't there always) of embedding fonts for the web. Neither really took off as far as I can tell. Webmonkey have an article on how to use both http://tinyurl.com/d843s -- Peter Williams __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
