Safari 3.1 and new CSS/HTML capabilities

Anyone seen this? http://www.macrumors.com/2008/03/18/new-html-and-css-features-in-safari-3-1/

Very exciting new capabilities ahead. SP, paying attention? :wink:


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

I’m anxious to see how this all plays out with regard to wide browser support, [cough]…IE. It could be awhile before these features become viable options. The downloadable fonts are especially interesting.

Todd

On Mar 19, 2008, at 1:05 PM, chuckamuck wrote:

Anyone seen this? http://www.macrumors.com/2008/03/18/new-html-and-css-features-in-safari-3-1/

Sometime around 19/3/08 (at 13:33 -0500) Todd said:

The downloadable fonts are especially interesting.

Mmm. The type in the Safari 3.0 example looks seriously badly set.
If this is what happens with browsers that don’t work with
downloading fonts, please don’t use that technology until it is
mainstream.

The title of that page would be more appropriate if it had been “The
Ugly of CSS Design”. It’ll be like the 1980s all over again, with
people using every font under the sun, badly set and massively
inappropriate.

k


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Yeah, well, you can’t police bad taste. Anyway, the ‘idea’ of downloadable fonts is what I find interesting, we’ll see how it works in the real (or Matrix) world.

Todd

On Mar 19, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Keith Martin wrote:

Mmm. The type in the Safari 3.0 example looks seriously badly set.

If this is what happens with browsers that don’t work with

downloading fonts, please don’t use that technology until it is

mainstream.

The title of that page would be more appropriate if it had been "The

Ugly of CSS Design". It’ll be like the 1980s all over again, with

people using every font under the sun, badly set and massively

inappropriate.

Sometime around 19/3/08 (at 15:36 -0500) Todd said:

the ‘idea’ of downloadable fonts is what I find interesting

Me too. This isn’t the first (or even second) time it has been tried.
I hope it works out a bit better this time around, but I do fear for
the state of web design for some years to come if it does become a
mainstream-supported feature.

k


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

On 19 Mar. 2008, 8:48 pm, thatkeith wrote:

Sometime around 19/3/08 (at 15:36 -0500) Todd said:

the ‘idea’ of downloadable fonts is what I find interesting

Me too. This isn’t the first (or even second) time it has been tried.
I hope it works out a bit better this time around, but I do fear for
the state of web design for some years to come if it does become a
mainstream-supported feature.

k

The interesting question is what format are they in? Since it is part on new CSS3 they will be called from the style sheet…but where do they reside? I doubt they get installed locally, so they must get cached in some special way.


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Sometime around 19/3/08 (at 17:23 -0400) chuckamuck said:

The interesting question is what format are they in?

And is it actually suitable for small text? What kind of memory hit
is there, does it include support for pair kerning or not (a subtle
but crucial point), can it be printed, is it made from true vector
shapes…?

k


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

I had a quick look through the CSS Web Fonts recommendation over at
W3C, and it appears that fonts can be Type 1, TrueType, OpenType,
some other format I can’t recall, it’s pretty wide open. The font
itself can be loaded from the local computer, or from a URL, and as
with the current font-family tag, you can specify your fallbacks.
There is an interesting bit of math in there, where they have
characterized the fonts according to the ratio between the X height
and the M height, and have a way to specify that any fallbacks be
adjusted proportionally to that ratio. It’s deeply ambitious stuff,
and until MS puts it in IE 11, we stand very little chance of getting
to use it.

Walter

On Mar 19, 2008, at 6:37 PM, Keith Martin wrote:

Sometime around 19/3/08 (at 17:23 -0400) chuckamuck said:

The interesting question is what format are they in?

And is it actually suitable for small text? What kind of memory hit
is there, does it include support for pair kerning or not (a subtle
but crucial point), can it be printed, is it made from true vector
shapes…?

k


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Sometime around 19/3/08 (at 21:14 -0400) Walter Lee Davis said:

There is an interesting bit of math in there, where they have
characterized the fonts according to the ratio between the X height
and the M height, and have a way to specify that any fallbacks be
adjusted proportionally to that ratio.

Damn clever. And not necessarily at all what I want as a typographer.

I remember, back in the early days of the PDF format, when Adobe was
telling everyone that the sans and serif substitution fonts would
render type effectively just as it should be with the original fonts
available. Non-typographer journalists were lapping it up, but I’m
afraid I was openly skeptical from the start. Funnily enough, such
claims are no longer heard.

Damn clever doesn’t necessarily mean good.

It’s deeply ambitious stuff,
and until MS puts it in IE 11, we stand very little chance of getting
to use it.

Ahh well…

k


offtopic mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options