Re: [Freetype] Re: PANOSE, and other ways to map fonts correctly

[Vadim Plessky]

On Sunday 18 November 2001 19:31, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
|   At 12:26 AM 11/18/2001 +0000, Vadim Plessky wrote:
|   >Apple and Adobe have some DTP and layouting experience, but none of them
|   > has own browser.
|
|            Apple has an HTML viewer as part of the OS, but it's HTML
|   3.2.  They also used to have CyberDog, but killed that for a number of
| reasons.
|

yes, it seems somewhat similar to Qt3 which has QT RichText widget with 
(basic) HTML layout capabilities. I don't know to which level of HTML it 
corresponds, but it's CSS-friendly, XML-friendly. (so probably more adbanced 
comparing to Apple's one)
But of course you can't call it a *browser*. 
It's rather easy to implement basic HTML support (a-la widget) - for example, 
Slashdot allows HTML postings with some number of tags.
Difficult part is to get support for real-world web sites, most of which are 
completely broken and do not validate (as Valid HTML/or XHTML or XML) at all.
Probably major reason why Apple killed CyberDog was this one.
(and the same is valid for Sun's HotJava browser)
 
|            Adobe, has developed a number of HTML viewing components - not
| the least of which is incorporated in their GoLive editor.
|

I have to admit here that I never used GoLive.
But AFAIK neither PageMaker nor Adobe InDesign nor Photoshop have HTML 
viewing components.

|            But I can understand why neither want to enter that market...
|
|   >And AFAIK neither Adobe nor Apple supports Mozilla hacking (like AOL
|   > does with paid jobs for Mozilla developers, or in some other way,
|   > donating code, etc.)
|
|            Adobe HAS a strange relationship with Mozilla, since Adobe
|   owns/owned a big chunk of Netscape.   However, the Adobe legal team has
|   gone back and forth about allowing engineers to work on the Mozilla code

I am subscribed to mozilla-layout and www-style lists, and I see no postings 
from Adobe people on both these lists. That's how I judge on Adobe 
involvement with Mozilla project (and W3C standards, CSS in particular)
To be 100% precise, Macromedia, Corel and Quark (from DTP & Graphic Arts 
companies) are also not involved in Mozilla project, and ignore W3C Style 
mailinglist.
So, taking into consideration these facts, I guess that they are not very 
interested in Open Standards evolving.
(and that's quite understandable knowning the fact that Macromedia owns 
Flash, widely used on web. Adove, incontrast, supports SVG - but just to get 
market share from Macromedia) 
 
|   base...and they have indeed worked with it and contributed over time. 
| But it may be that these days the Open Source licenses may be getting in
| the way again.

Do you know something I don't know?  :-)
 
Just my opinion:
While Microsoft is the major (and biggest) company to be affected by Open 
Source projects, it is not the only one. Other software companies will be 
affected as well, Adobe in particular (I guess you know KIllustrator/Kontour 
story...). 
Keeping this in mind, I doubt why Adobe should want to support Open Source? 
("kill ourself" strategy?)   
|
|   LDR

-- 

Vadim Plessky
http://kde2.newmail.ru  (English)
33 Window Decorations and 6 Widget Styles for KDE
http://kde2.newmail.ru/kde_themes.html
KDE mini-Themes
http://kde2.newmail.ru/themes/