From: Dom Lachowicz (doml@appligent.com)
Date: Thu Aug 08 2002 - 19:29:23 EDT
> you're doing a:
>
> FrameMaker et al. keep layout
> word processors should not be used when you want to keep layout.
>
> And I don't agree with this reasoning. Word processors and FrameMaker
> have different user base, and usually very different UI, and they focus
> on different things. But I don't agree this one to be a fundamental
> difference, except by historical reasons
You're confusing this. Word processors group content into logical
blocks - sections, paragraphs, runs, etc... Layout is a secondary
consequence of presenting the *structured* content in a human-readable
form. For a product such as FrameMaker, the layout *is* the important
bit, and what gets laid out (i.e. the content) is secondary. Word
processors are thus given a degree of leeway in that a document can
look *slightly* different based on the product,fonts,etc... that are
rendering it.
>>>> I'm seeing a problem when we have a 10M glyph font embedded inside
>>>> of
>>>> a
>>>> 1 page document. Do we want a 4MB, 1 page document? Is this the best
>>>> route to go? Can we be smart and say "you don't have fonts X, Y, Z.
>>>> Go
>>>> get them from http://myfontland.com"?
>>>
>>> No, absolutely no. The user that receives your document may not have
>>> inet access (it happens a lot), or it may be expensive, or it may be
>>> a
>>> pain to download, or the site may be down, or...
>>
>> This is exactly my point.
>
> ?? the document is easily reachable (usually in a CD or in a floppy).
> Fonts may not be downloadable, or be a pain to download all the need
> fonts. That's exactly the reverse of your point.
My point was that this sort of proposal would cause issues for some
people. You have issues with my mock proposal (as I had with yours), so
obviously it raises issues for *at least one* intelligent person -
which is *exactly* my point. Fin.
>>> Of course, not.
>>
>> Unlikely. This is not a risk I'm willing to take.
>
> Whatever. That's not more risky that buying eggs. And I'm willing to
> take the risk.
I'll ask the feds nicely so incarcerate you, then, should any problems
arise. They shouldn't mind...
>>> We can not be more liable than, say, freetype. After all, a program
>>> to
>>> embed a font in a postscript file don't takes more than an afternoon
>>> to
>>> write, and nobody is going to sue gcc authors...
>>
>> The *very* important distinction here is that freetype and gcc don't
>> do
>> font embedding but AbiWord would. Sure, one can build a program using
>> freetype and gcc to embed a font inside of a PS file. What is that
>> program's name? Gee, it's AbiWord, pre-built for your circumvention
>> and
>> embedding needs.
>
> Did I said something about respecting copyrights?
>
> Did I said something about the *TON* of programs already doing that
> (both commercials and free ones)?
Yes, you did. Did I say something about how easily this could be
circumvented? Even if a font says that it can be redistributed N times,
if people are using Abi as the distribution means for N+1 copies of
that font, I am afraid that in some courts we could be found liable
*along* with the person who distributed the font (via facilitation). Is
this likely? Probably not. Is it possible? I wouldn't rule it out.
> Even sending a font to the printer may be illegal, and ghostscript does
> it, for instance.
Back-deriving glyphs from ink on paper is not a good means to
redistribute fonts illegally. Embedding them inside of documents as
binary data is. Sending binary fonts to a paper-printing device would
be construed as "fair use" and you know it...
> When you buy a commercial program, they say you "don't copy it except
> for making a backup". If you copy it using cp and you give it to a
> friend, then *YOU* are liable. Not cp authors.
Just like Napster wasn't liable for its users actions? Just like gun
dealers can't sometimes get sued/incarcerated for selling legal weapons
to legal customers here? I agree with your case, as I totally share
*exactly* the same viewpoints as you. What I'm not so sure of is that
the legislatures and legal systems of our various countries agree with
*us*, as they have proven time and again that they don't.
>> I am *not* saying that we shouldn't strive to have excellent and
>> consistent layout, regardless of the platform used. Traditionally,
>> WordProcessing documents have been a *poor* way of doing this, as
>> they're not really meant to. For that, we have tools like LaTeX,
>> FrameMaker, PS, PDF, et. al. What I *am* saying is that I don't like
>> the idea of embedding fonts inside of the document in order to achieve
>> this effect.
>
> alternatives?
LaTeX, Lyx, PDF, Framemaker, PS, XSL-FO and below ->
>> There are ways to achieve the behavior that you're looking for, even
>> with a tool like Abi as part of the document workflow.
>
> how can you get an editable document with the same look without
> embedding the font? What are these "ways"?
1) Install same font(s) on the next system
2) Reference external fonts
3) Install "language pack" like entities, like ms windows has
4) Embed or subset fonts inside of documents
I strongly prefer options 1-3 and am hinting that I don't believe that
this is much of a problem that needs addressing. You obviously don't
agree with me, which is your right.
Also note that all 4 solutions work for at least your 1 workflow
(namely your "last minute alteration" workflow), though they each have
their own benefits and drawbacks.
>> However, Abi is
>> not FrameMaker and Abi is not PDF. Abi is a word processor. There are
>> many subtle (and not-so-subtle) distinctions between all of the
>> aforementioned technologies, and what users have come to expect from
>> them.
>
> Ok, write down the different goals between we, and say MS Word. Word
> does font embedding. Font embedding is useful. There is no possible
> discussion about it.
Another bogus argument:
Word has a talking paperclip. Talking paperclips are useful. There is
no possible discussion about it.
Just because you can argue for something doesn't mean that other people
can't argue against it, question its necessity, or suggest
alternatives...
> You say it may be illegal (even if everybody in the world is doing it)?
> I show you free and commercial examples of people doing it.
Bogus argument for various reasons:
1) Not "everybody" is doing it
2) It is not illegal everywhere
3) Prior illegalities (free and commercial examples) don't matter as to
whether something is illegal or not. EG: Everyone jaywalks. Is
jaywalking still illegal in most places? Yes? Even though you consider
it to be a silly law? Can I still get fined or put in jail for it? Oh
wait, I can?
You're willing to take a "chance", but have nothing to lose from your
taking it and thus no chance is taken (as stupid laws like the DMCA
aren't applicable in Europe). I potentially have something to lose from
your taking this chance. You fail to realize this, and even though I
may overstate my risks and liabilities for the sake of argument, that
does not diminish the fact that the risk still remains.
And that's beside the fact that I believe this to be a sub-optimal
solution to an over-exaggerated problem...
> Now, *WHERE* is the problem?
Do whatever you want. I'm tired of arguing.
Dom
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Aug 08 2002 - 19:31:35 EDT