Re: STIX fonts for clients

On May 30, 12:11 am, "Paul Topping" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > [email protected]
> > [mailto:[email protected]
> > .org] On Behalf Of William F Hammond
> > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 1:17 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: STIX fonts for clients
>
> > "Paul Topping" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > > So Mozilla Firefox is planning on doing a sub-standard job of
> > > installing fonts based on the idea that it is the only game in town
> > > as far as MathML support is concerned?
>
> > I don't think that was said.  Wasn't the phrase  "only browser with
> > _native_ MathML support"?
>
> I guess I was reading between the lines. Is there another interpretation
> of "native" in this context?
>
> > > Bad idea, I think. They should bite the bullet and do the job right.
>
> > I may be lost, but is the intention here to argue against a browser
> > bundling math fonts for its own use rather than installing them for
> > overall platform use?  Or what?
>
> Yes. Installing them for its own use balkanizes the user's machine. So,
> what if STIX comes out with a new version and the user installs it using
> the Windows Fonts control panel, for example? Firefox users will not see
> the benefit. There are a number of other scenarios that are equally
> confusing to the user. While the OS does support fonts that are private
> to the application, I believe this is mostly intended for fonts that are
> used in the user interface of the application and that make no sense to
> be shared among all apps. Regardless, users are accustomed to installing
> fonts in the Windows control panel and similarly on Mac. As far as I can
> see, the only reason it is being suggested to make the STIX fonts
> private to FF is to simply avoid the work of making a proper font
> installation.
>
> > (For platform installation unless a browser is re-distributed by the
> > platform vendor there are "courtesy" issues [who has the right to
> > install what and in which location] that strike me as overwhelmingly
> > complicated with too many opportunities for breakage.  Up until now
> > with downloaded Mozillas the buck has been passed to the user.  We
> > know it is not working well for most users.)
>
> >                                     -- Bill
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > dev-tech-mathml mailing list
> > [email protected]
> >https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-mathml

Hi Paul,

You are misinterpreting two points of my proposition:

1. A native support means not proprietary. MathPlayer is proprietary.
What will happen if one day Design Science will stop its support?
I am a developer of a web-hosted course-ware of math for university
students. For that purpose I am using SVG as well as MathML. The
course-ware was developed for MS IE and used the SVG plugin ASV: Adobe
SVG Viewer. Unfortunately for me Adobe bought Macromedia, and
announced the discontinuation of its support for ASV, probably in
order to focus on Flash (a Macromerdia's product). Fortunally for me
Firefox developed a strong NATIVE support for SVG and MathML and I had
to convert my course-ware to Firefox instead of IE. Please read about
the WWW Consortium, and see why the NATIVE support is much better for
the consumer.

2. My proposition does not balkanize the user's machine, and does not
make the STIX fonts private to FF. If Stix upgrades its fonts, as
usual Firefox will ask the users using MathML to upgrade the version
of Firefox. You know that all browsers (including MS IE) are upgrading
from time to time.
A user of any OS can upgrade the STIX fonts installed in his machine,
independently of the platform and browser used.