Posted by jake on 08/28/05 19:40

In message <Pine.WNT.4.63.0508281109170.1992@ZORIN>, Alan J. Flavell
<flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk> writes
>
>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.

Maybe it's just as well that it will work for the 90% of the Web
population using IE ;-)
>
>> 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.

The browser will simply fall back on the default font(s) if it doesn't
support font embedding. So I'm not quite sure I see a problem here.

It's just presenting text in a preferred font; not much different to
specifying Verdana for those systems that don't have Verdana installed.

A win-win situation?

[snip]

regards.
--
Jake
(jake@gododdin.demon.co.uk .... just a spam trap.)

[Back to original message]