Font specifications

[al jones]

I think I need to degrade this to make it work so I'll ask a really basic
question.

I'm trying to display a set of fonts that are *not* installed but are
present on my computer. Is there any way to reference them and use them on
an html page *without* installing them??

For example,
Font Name looks like <sample text> where, obviously?, the font name is the
true font name and the sample text is displayed in that font...

//al

[phil-news-nospam]

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 19:57:42 GMT al jones <al**********@shotmail.com> wrote:

| I think I need to degrade this to make it work so I'll ask a really basic
| question.
|
| I'm trying to display a set of fonts that are *not* installed but are
| present on my computer. Is there any way to reference them and use them on
| an html page *without* installing them??
|
| For example,
| Font Name looks like <sample text> where, obviously?, the font name is the
| true font name and the sample text is displayed in that font...

If your page sends the correct character code, as well as font name, for a
font you wish to display, and my computer does not have this font, then how
is it going to know how to construct the glyphs as specified? I think what
you are looking for is some way to include the font file in the web page
itself. That might be an interesting feature, but I've never heard of such
a thing. So I guess we are forced to use the lowest common denominator or
use images excessively (as a lot of sites seem to do).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Stan Brown]

16 Apr 2006 03:09:17 GMT from <ph**************@ipal.net>:

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 19:57:42 GMT al jones <al**********@shotmail.com> wrote:
| I'm trying to display a set of fonts that are *not* installed but
| are present on my computer. Is there any way to reference them
| and use them on an html page *without* installing them??

That might be an interesting feature, but I've never heard of such
a thing. So I guess we are forced to use the lowest common
denominator or use images excessively (as a lot of sites seem to do).

Or, of course, to "stop wanting that".

Outside of a Web page whose subject is typography, which will almost
certainly have to use images, why does a Web author need to specify a
particular font anyway? No matter which one you specify, for some
readers it will work worse than not specifying a font. Some reasons:

(1) They haven't got it.
(2) They've got one with the same name but different glyphs.
(3) They've got it, but it's harder for them to read than their own
font choice.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

[al jones]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 06:50:20 -0400, Stan Brown wrote:

16 Apr 2006 03:09:17 GMT from <ph**************@ipal.net>:

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 19:57:42 GMT al jones <al**********@shotmail.com> wrote:
| I'm trying to display a set of fonts that are *not* installed but
| are present on my computer. Is there any way to reference them
| and use them on an html page *without* installing them??

That might be an interesting feature, but I've never heard of such
a thing. So I guess we are forced to use the lowest common
denominator or use images excessively (as a lot of sites seem to do).

Or, of course, to "stop wanting that".

Outside of a Web page whose subject is typography, which will almost
certainly have to use images, why does a Web author need to specify a
particular font anyway? No matter which one you specify, for some
readers it will work worse than not specifying a font. Some reasons:

(1) They haven't got it.
(2) They've got one with the same name but different glyphs.
(3) They've got it, but it's harder for them to read than their own
font choice.

In most cases I readily agree to 'stop wanting that' but in this case it's
an entirely different animal. I'm the author of a Visual Basic program
which, among other things lists the fonts one has on their own system. One
of my users requested that I output a list sorted by his options (which is
what FontOrg is all about) in HTML so he can click on the link to bring up
the font viewer. I was trying to take it one step further and put a
display of the font on the list since:
1) They do have it
2) It's on their machine (unless they pass the list to someone else - then
it's, indeed, a devil take the hindmost).
3) It's a display of what they do have.

WEFT and anything like it is out, since it would depend on an external
resource they may or may not have on their machine.

So, I guess I'll just have to stop wanting that ...

Thanks //al

[Jack]

al jones wrote:

In most cases I readily agree to 'stop wanting that' but in this case
it's an entirely different animal. I'm the author of a Visual Basic
program which, among other things lists the fonts one has on their
own system. One of my users requested that I output a list sorted by
his options (which is what FontOrg is all about) in HTML so he can
click on the link to bring up the font viewer.

Here there is a category error; the user's requirements have been
confused with a detail of the implementation. What the user requires is
the ability to click on an entry in 'a list sorted by his options', with
the list presumably including a demonstration of each installed font.

He (probably) does not *require* that the list be represented using
HTML, any more than he requires the application to be written in a
modular fashion, with comments in english in each module and each
subroutine. And even if he does require these things, they would be a
different class of requirements from those mentioned earlier, the former
being functional in nature, the latter being technical requirements.

What I'm suggesting, in my roundabout way, is that HTML may be the wrong
implementation technology to choose, given that this is a desktop
application. I take it you are planning to use a browser widget to
display the list, and that this is behind the need to represent the list
as HTML. my VB knowledge is pretty rusty, but some other kind of
rich-text widget would seem to be more appropriate.

Of course, your choice of HTML to represent the list may arise from
other exigencies that you haven't mentioned - after all, your original
post failed to mention the crucial fact that you are writing a desktop
application, not a web-page.

--
Jack.

[al jones]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 14:51:38 +0100, Jack wrote:

al jones wrote:

In most cases I readily agree to 'stop wanting that' but in this case
it's an entirely different animal. I'm the author of a Visual Basic
program which, among other things lists the fonts one has on their
own system. One of my users requested that I output a list sorted by
his options (which is what FontOrg is all about) in HTML so he can
click on the link to bring up the font viewer.

Here there is a category error; the user's requirements have been
confused with a detail of the implementation. What the user requires is
the ability to click on an entry in 'a list sorted by his options', with
the list presumably including a demonstration of each installed font.

He (probably) does not *require* that the list be represented using
HTML, any more than he requires the application to be written in a
modular fashion, with comments in english in each module and each
subroutine. And even if he does require these things, they would be a
different class of requirements from those mentioned earlier, the former
being functional in nature, the latter being technical requirements.

What I'm suggesting, in my roundabout way, is that HTML may be the wrong
implementation technology to choose, given that this is a desktop
application. I take it you are planning to use a browser widget to
display the list, and that this is behind the need to represent the list
as HTML. my VB knowledge is pretty rusty, but some other kind of
rich-text widget would seem to be more appropriate.

Of course, your choice of HTML to represent the list may arise from
other exigencies that you haven't mentioned - after all, your original
post failed to mention the crucial fact that you are writing a desktop
application, not a web-page.

Trying not to sounds so pedantic as the responder - no, my question was
very pecific "is there a way to do this" and the reply should have been
just as specific "No."

While this group is 'www.authoring.html' I chose the aspect of authoring
html as the operative part - my mistake. How a web page is generated - by
hand in NotePad, programatically in one of the WYSIWYG editors or
programatically output from an application (Word, Open Office, or my
FontOrg) - should, IMHO, be secondary to the question asked. Of course
there are other considerations - my question was, in fact, very specific
"Is there a way to display these fonts directly from within an html
document?" (Paraphrased somewhat.)

Phils response, which never made it to my server - I ony see it in the
quote from Stan - was the operative answer: In some cases that might be
interesting (as in this one) but he knows of none.

I actually can tolerate Jacks answer - and I get really tired of 'stop
wanting that' - because he goes on to give reasons that one should 'not
want that' which make it a very acceptable answer.

Your esoteric cogitations (translate to read verbal flatulance) regarding
the users request - not requirement - which caused me to take a look at an
option in implementation that I hadn't previously, are entirely
unnecessary. Your third paragraph actually has meaning - but ignores the
fact that I just may have looked at the richtext / straight text options.
Is html and invoking the browser a poor choice? Possibly, but it is a
choice I'd presume to be able to make on my own, however, not being
all-knowing, I asked a question regarding the posssibility / feasibility of
another option.

enough, I have better things to do ...

Phil, Stan I thank you and do appreciate you input.

//al

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <4y****************************@40tude.net>, dated Sat,
15 Apr 2006 19:57:42 remote, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring
..html, al jones <al**********@shotmail.com> posted :

For example,
Font Name looks like <sample text> where, obviously?, the font name is the
true font name and the sample text is displayed in that font...

Not an adequate display.

A). Some fonts are more or less unreadable as text; Symbol's not too
bad, but Webdings ...

B). The names of most fonts do not include all the important
characters; one may want to know how distinguishable I i j l 1 are, for
example.

I suggest displaying the name in a common legible font, then for a font
sample the "7-bit" characters on a normal US/UK keyboard, including
space (which should indicate, more or less, what the European accented
characters will look like). And perhaps some indication of what other
types of character are included : Arabic, ...

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Plaintext, quoting : see <URL:http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html>
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SoRFC1036)

[VK]

al jones wrote:

OP: set of fonts that are *not* installed

Now: lists the fonts one has on their own system.

These are mutually exclusive requests. So what fonts do you want to
see:
1) The ones not registered on the system: thus presented somewhere on
harddrive as .ttf files but not currently visible to any client
program. Do zipped archives count too then?

2) The ones registered on the system: thus presented somewhere on
harddrive as .ttf files and available to client editing programs.

3) 1 and 2 combined.

[Jack]

al jones wrote:

Trying not to sounds so pedantic as the responder - no, my question
was very pecific "is there a way to do this" and the reply should
have been just as specific "No."
'Cept that's not what I said.
I actually can tolerate Jacks answer -
Kewl! I am tolerable!
Your esoteric cogitations (translate to read verbal flatulance) ...
Oh, good grief. I was briefer than you are being, and I actually said
something.
... are entirely unnecessary. Your third paragraph actually has
meaning -
A moment ago you said it was a "very acceptable answer".
but ignores the fact that I just may have looked at the richtext /
straight text options.
How can I "ignore the fact", if you never mentioned it in the first
place? I am not a telepath, although I may be a bit of a windbag. And I
hope you didn't spend too long on the "straight text" option, which you
may have found restrictive as regards the crucial font-display bit.
enough, I have better things to do ...

Phil, Stan I thank you and do appreciate you input.

Oh, but no thanks for my "very acceptable answer". Even if you didn't
like it, it was polite, and it was a real attempt to grapple with your
cryptic question. I certainly shan't be trying to help
alfredmjones@[s]hotmail.com again. Some people...

--
Jack.

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <e1*******************@news.demon.co.uk>, dated Sun, 16
Apr 2006 14:51:38 remote, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.ht
ml, Jack <mr*********@nospam.jackpot.uk.net> posted :

Of course, your choice of HTML to represent the list may arise from
other exigencies that you haven't mentioned - after all, your original
post failed to mention the crucial fact that you are writing a desktop
application, not a web-page.

He did say "my computer", however. That seems enough.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk DOS 3.3, 6.20; Win98. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links.
PAS EXE TXT ZIP via <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/00index.htm>
My DOS <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/batfiles.htm> - also batprogs.htm.

[David E. Ross]

al jones wrote:

I think I need to degrade this to make it work so I'll ask a really basic
question.

I'm trying to display a set of fonts that are *not* installed but are
present on my computer. Is there any way to reference them and use them on
an html page *without* installing them??

For example,
Font Name looks like <sample text> where, obviously?, the font name is the
true font name and the sample text is displayed in that font...

//al

What you seek is the style-sheet Web Fonts property proposed for CSS3.
Don't hold your breath waiting for this. The latest working draft is
dated 2 August 2002. The close of comments was supposedly 30 August
2002, but there has been no activity on this specification since the
working draft. The final recommendation (the official publication of
the specification) is not due until 2008.

This property was in the CSS2 specification but was then deleted from
the CSS2.1 specification. The description in CSS2 was quite different
from the description proposed for CSS3.

It appears that two issues make this property questionable for the final
CSS3 specification. First, there is a lack of consensus on the
descrption of the property. Second, there is concern that it cannot be
implemented no matter how it is described. Note that this reflects my
understanding (as a total outsider) of the comments on the working draft.

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
into your E-mail? Use PGP.
See my <http://www.rossde.com/PGP/>

[al jones]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 16:37:56 +0100, Dr John Stockton wrote:

JRS: In article <4y****************************@40tude.net>, dated Sat,
15 Apr 2006 19:57:42 remote, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring
.html, al jones <al**********@shotmail.com> posted :

For example,
Font Name looks like <sample text> where, obviously?, the font name is the
true font name and the sample text is displayed in that font...

Not an adequate display.

A). Some fonts are more or less unreadable as text; Symbol's not too
bad, but Webdings ...

B). The names of most fonts do not include all the important
characters; one may want to know how distinguishable I i j l 1 are, for
example.

I suggest displaying the name in a common legible font, then for a font
sample the "7-bit" characters on a normal US/UK keyboard, including
space (which should indicate, more or less, what the European accented
characters will look like). And perhaps some indication of what other
types of character are included : Arabic, ...

What I should have said is that if the user chooses to sort by, for
example, Foundry and then designer the resultant print out would look like
foundry name
designer 1
font name 1
font name 2
designer 2
etc ...
all of the above in the default font, in fact, that's how I do it now, I
was just trying to add a display of the font so the user would be able to
see at a glance what it looked like - but as my Brit friends are inclined
to say 'No joy'.

//al

[al jones]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 17:34:14 -0700, David E. Ross wrote:

al jones wrote:

I think I need to degrade this to make it work so I'll ask a really basic
question.

I'm trying to display a set of fonts that are *not* installed but are
present on my computer. Is there any way to reference them and use them on
an html page *without* installing them??

For example,
Font Name looks like <sample text> where, obviously?, the font name is the
true font name and the sample text is displayed in that font...

//al

What you seek is the style-sheet Web Fonts property proposed for CSS3.
Don't hold your breath waiting for this. The latest working draft is
dated 2 August 2002. The close of comments was supposedly 30 August
2002, but there has been no activity on this specification since the
working draft. The final recommendation (the official publication of
the specification) is not due until 2008.

This property was in the CSS2 specification but was then deleted from
the CSS2.1 specification. The description in CSS2 was quite different
from the description proposed for CSS3.

It appears that two issues make this property questionable for the final
CSS3 specification. First, there is a lack of consensus on the
descrption of the property. Second, there is concern that it cannot be
implemented no matter how it is described. Note that this reflects my
understanding (as a total outsider) of the comments on the working draft.

David, thanks for the education <chuckle> but I don't think my users would
be willing to wait for that long even if this is a freeware toy.
Personally I can't see it working for several diffeent reasons:
1) embedding fonts into a web page is going to cause all type of legal
hassles. I own the right to the font - but if I embed the font into a web
page, unless it was just the extract of the font needed for the page, then
it could then be ripped as the fonts embedded in PDF's are.
2) embedding fonts into a page would probably make the size of the
resultant page excessive. Okay, most of the world is going to high speed
of some kind but it would seem to create an unecessary burden on the
carriers / ISP's.
3) That also begs the question 'I have Crafton Normal on my system and
Crafton Normal is embedded in the web page, which gets used?' If they're
in fact the same font it really doesn't matter, but if *I* create a web
page with a bogus derivitive font, to suit *my* special pages requirement,
then send it across the wire - well, which gets used then?

No, I don't think this is really anything for which I wish to wait.

Thanks for the comments and the education. //al

[Stan Brown]

Sun, 16 Apr 2006 13:18:11 GMT from al jones
<al**********@shotmail.com>:

In most cases I readily agree to 'stop wanting that' but in this case it's
an entirely different animal. I'm the author of a Visual Basic program
which, among other things lists the fonts one has on their own system. One
of my users requested that I output a list sorted by his options (which is
what FontOrg is all about) in HTML so he can click on the link to bring up
the font viewer. I was trying to take it one step further and put a
display of the font on the list since:
1) They do have it
2) It's on their machine (unless they pass the list to someone else - then
it's, indeed, a devil take the hindmost).
3) It's a display of what they do have.

Sounds like a call for an application program (downloadable to run on
the client not the server) rather than HTML -- easy for me to say, I
know. :-)

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you