I know that a web page will not look as intended if the visitor does
not have the specified font installed on their computer..
But what about printing the web page? If the same visitor tries to
print that page and does not have the font installed, will they get
the intended font, or a substitute on their printout? I think a
substitution?... I'm trying to grasp what the printer sees, but having
a mental block!
Scripsit ynoteh:
> I know that a web page will not look as intended if the visitor does
> not have the specified font installed on their computer..
> But what about printing the web page?
The situation is mostly the same. In rare cases, the system might lack a
named font as a printer font but have it as a screen font, or vice
versa.
> If the same visitor tries to
> print that page and does not have the font installed, will they get
> the intended font, or a substitute on their printout?
Of course he does not get the intended font. He might get a substitute
font selected by the browser (e.g., specifying "Times" might result in
"Times New Roman" being used, if "Times" does not exist), but more
often, the browser's default font will be used.
You might affect this by using a print style sheet, e.g.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
ynoteh wrote:
> I know that a web page will not look as intended if the visitor does
> not have the specified font installed on their computer..
> But what about printing the web page? If the same visitor tries to
> print that page and does not have the font installed, will they get
> the intended font, or a substitute on their printout? I think a
> substitution?... I'm trying to grasp what the printer sees, but having
> a mental block!
Viewing or printing, same thing. if the user does have the font, it will
not print. The font is not *embedded* in an HTML document. Look at it
this way and HTML document is like script for a play, it test what the
actors say and do, but not who the actors are. So on Broadway Lang and
Broderick may stared. If the play is in your hometown, the play will be
the same, but the actors will most likely not be Lang and Broderick but
who is available. Same as your font in a HTML document. Unlike in media
where fonts are embedded like PDFs, to complete the analogy, like a copy
of a movie. If you have a copy of the '68 movie then wherever you play
it the actors are always Mostel and Wilder.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
"Jonathan N. Little"
news:9f838$478f715c$40cba7cd$16757@NAXS.COM...
> ynoteh wrote:
>> I know that a web page will not look as intended if the visitor does
>> not have the specified font installed on their computer..
>> But what about printing the web page? If the same visitor tries to
>> print that page and does not have the font installed, will they get
>> the intended font, or a substitute on their printout? I think a
>> substitution?... I'm trying to grasp what the printer sees, but having
>> a mental block!
>
> Viewing or printing, same thing. if the user does have the font, it will
> not print. The font is not *embedded* in an HTML document. Look at it this
> way and HTML document is like script for a play, it test what the actors
> say and do, but not who the actors are. So on Broadway Lang and Broderick
> may stared. If the play is in your hometown, the play will be the same,
> but the actors will most likely not be Lang and Broderick but who is
> available. Same as your font in a HTML document. Unlike in media where
> fonts are embedded like PDFs, to complete the analogy, like a copy of a
> movie. If you have a copy of the '68 movie then wherever you play it the
> actors are always Mostel and Wilder.
>
> --
> Take care,
>
> Jonathan
Cool analogy!!!
I was analogising to my friend for whom I'm building a site. I had (X)HTML
as the building, CSS as the decor and JavaScript as the light switches. Was
quietly chuffed with myself!
+mrcakey
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> ynoteh wrote:
>> I know that a web page will not look as intended if the visitor does
>> not have the specified font installed on their computer..
>> But what about printing the web page? If the same visitor tries to
>> print that page and does not have the font installed, will they get
>> the intended font, or a substitute on their printout? I think a
>> substitution?... I'm trying to grasp what the printer sees, but having
>> a mental block!
>
> Viewing or printing, same thing. if the user does have the font, it will
> not print. The font is not *embedded* in an HTML document. Look at it
> this way and HTML document is like script for a play, it test what the
> actors say and do, but not who the actors are. So on Broadway Lang
Lane.
> and
> Broderick may stared. If the play is in your hometown, the play will be
> the same, but the actors will most likely not be Lang and Broderick but
> who is available.
It already wasn't Lane and Broderick by the time I got to the show on
Broadway. It was Steven Weber and some English guy, and the English guy
was terrible and Weber not so hot, and they were removed from the roles
within weeks.
> Same as your font in a HTML document. Unlike in media
> where fonts are embedded like PDFs, to complete the analogy, like a copy
> of a movie. If you have a copy of the '68 movie then wherever you play
> it the actors are always Mostel and Wilder.
But if you have a copy of the 2005 version of the movie then it's Lane
and Broderick again.
A better analogy might have been a script for Robin Hood where Robin's
lines are annotated, "Spoken in an English accent", which means that
actors who have an English accent installed will speak their parts in an
English accent, while Kevin Costner, who evidently doesn't have an
English accent installed, will speak American all through the film.
Harlan Messinger wrote:
> ..while Kevin Costner, who evidently doesn't have an English accent
> installed, will speak American all through the film.
Kevin Costner always just plays himself.
I laughed all through the Robin Hood movie, every time he spoke. Not
only American, but 20th century American slang.
--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>> ..while Kevin Costner, who evidently doesn't have an English accent
>> installed, will speak American all through the film.
>
> Kevin Costner always just plays himself.
>
> I laughed all through the Robin Hood movie, every time he spoke. Not
> only American, but 20th century American slang.
>
The only movie Costner was any good in was "The War", and mostly because
his part was small!
And I have no idea how Lane became Lang? I meant Nathan not Jessica.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
In article <2d64a$478f93d8$40cba7cd$4929@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little"
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> > Harlan Messinger wrote:
> >
> >> ..while Kevin Costner, who evidently doesn't have an English accent
> >> installed, will speak American all through the film.
> >
> > Kevin Costner always just plays himself.
> >
> > I laughed all through the Robin Hood movie, every time he spoke. Not
> > only American, but 20th century American slang.
> >
> The only movie Costner was any good in was "The War", and mostly because
> his part was small!
Perhaps, but I liked his schmalzy Elliot Ness and Dancing with
Wolves. I don't know why.
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:43:54
GMT Jonathan N. Little scribed:
>> Kevin Costner always just plays himself.
>>
>> I laughed all through the Robin Hood movie, every time he spoke. Not
>> only American, but 20th century American slang.
>>
> The only movie Costner was any good in was "The War", and mostly
> because his part was small!
I partially agree but liked him in "Open Range". Also thought he was
adequate in "Dances _With_ Wolves" although the excellence of the movie
may have had something to do with it.
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
dorayme wrote:
> Perhaps, but I liked his schmalzy Elliot Ness and Dancing with
> Wolves. I don't know why.
>
Can't imagine!
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
In article <81c09$478ff395$40cba7cd$6778@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little"
> dorayme wrote:
>
> > Perhaps, but I liked his schmalzy Elliot Ness and Dancing with
> > Wolves. I don't know why.
> >
> Can't imagine!
I liked when he said to a young officer in a car, while they were
waiting to make a bust, are you married, and when the yes came
back he said, "It is nice being married". And in Wolves, I liked
his early reading of his diary. With most films there is nothing
at all I like about them, not a thing.
--
dorayme