From: Alan Horkan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Oct 03 2002 - 10:05:59 EDT
> I'm with Jody here. The mapping algorithm has 2
> parts: a fixed, reproducible one, and a second part
> driven by user preferences. We should not impose the
> font alias preferences of the author of the document
> in the reader of the document.
The way i see this is that there are multiple users and the creator user
may want to specify differnt preferences to the recipient user. The
recipient of course should be able to make their preferences take
precedence, i am not suggesting the user be forced to accpet a layout just
that whoeever creates the document could want the option to specify very
Assuming the font mapping mechanism is some how crap and flawed (no
offense you cannot guarantee it will be perfect) the document creator
might know better than than either the recipient or the automatic mapping
system. (pehaps they know that some symbol, say a filled heart shape in
one font is not available in another but that there is a close enough
symbol, say an outline heart shape that could convey the same meaning but
it would be unlikely that the two would have a direct mapping)
I am trying to say that even though it this is highly unlikely and
probably complicated but not totally beyond the realm of possibility. I
guess that is reason enough not to bother, i was just got distracted/hung
up on the suggestion that it would *never* be useful.
"All generalisations are false including this one"
It is a non issue so ill be quiet now.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 03 2002 - 10:11:45 EDT