|
|
Posted by Alan J. Flavell on 08/28/05 13:28
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Kim André Akerø wrote:
> Morgan wrote:
[apparently about WEFT specifically - at any rate about the general topic
of incrementally downloaded fonts in web pages]
> > btw: it tells you that its for IE but it works for every browser
> > really. Try it and see. If it dosn't tell me, I've used it with
> > navigator versions, explorer's and firefox
>
> No, it doesn't work with Opera either, and that's even using the latest
> version. I also tried it with Mozilla Firefox, no dice there either.
And it sure isn't going to work with w3m, emacs-w3, lynx. Nor google nor
any other search engines, either.
> I wouldn't exactly say that "it works for every browser", then.
The worst part being that when it doesn't work, the reader gets no kind
of clear indication that it isn't working. Likely as not they just get
the wrong display. Which could be terribly misleading, if the web page
was relying on it, rather than just using it for optional decoration.
> It only works with Internet Explorer.
Hence the triumphant claim on MS's web page that:
| This technology is changing the look of the Web, by empowering site
| designers to ensure their pages appear as they want them to.
Compatibility with W3C, anyone?
The original idea of the web, I thought, was to have the content presented
to the user in a way that was appropriate to each user's presentation
situation and needs. If "designers" wanted to ensure their exact
presentation, then surely they'd be better advised to use PDF, or MS-Word
or something - and leave HTML/CSS in peace?
Well, I wouldn't say that MS's claim was true in Feb.2001 when they put
their copyright on that page, and I see no evidence that it's true now.
Pity they hadn't concentrated their effort on support for SVG: I think
that would have had better prospects for success. And with a design which
had considered the options for fallback when the intended presentation
wasn't feasible.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|