From: Arcane Jill (arcanejill@ramonsky.com)
Date: Tue Dec 02 2003 - 12:07:41 EST
You misunderstand me. Whilst I have no objection to paying for ADDED
value, I'm talking about what comes built in, out of the box.
Consider the literary equivalent. Suppose I went to a library and
borrowed a book, took it home, and attempted to read it (the real world
equivalent of viewing a web page). Suppose then, that instead of
readable characters, a critical math formula was printed as a series of
"unsupported character" glyphs, and that subsequent exploration revealed
that the book could only be read if I, the reader (not the publisher),
were to pay money to the font designer. I would feel (rightly, I think)
aggrieved.
You see, I'm not talking about "good" fonts, just "basic" fonts. In
fact, _/any/_ fonts. Essentially, I expect every character to display,
albeit poorly, but to display. I expect the operating system to provide
a fallback font for every character. The Macintosh does exactly this.
Windows doesn't. That's all.
Jill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Constable [mailto:petercon@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 4:16 PM
> To: unicode@unicode.org
> Subject: RE: MS Windows and Unicode 4.0 ?
>
> Where did the idea come from that added value is a right that does not
> deserve compensation? Good fonts are not cheap! (As Chuck Bigelow once
> said, it's OK to pay type designers; really.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 02 2003 - 13:15:41 EST