Subject:
|
Re: Typefaces: Verdana vs. Times
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Apr 1999 21:33:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1117 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.publish, rueger@io.com (Tim Rueger) writes:
> Hmm. Seems to me the whole typography thing
> goes against the grain of how the web was
> conceived.
Indeed it does go against the original intentions/conceptions.
> Isn't HTML supposed to be a
> description of how a page is rendered, with
> the particular web browser deciding on fonts?
Long ago it was supposed to be that way. But that was when physicists,
mathematicians, and programmers were the only people using the web. It's
possible (maybe even easy) to go a little too nuts with typography on the
web, but careful attention to backward compatibility can yield great results
all around. HTML is a tagged language, after all.
> FWIW, Steve's page looks excellent OMM, but then
> I'm using Netscape 3.04 on my Mac. ;^)
Well, everything looks good on a Mac. :)
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Typefaces: Verdana vs. Times
|
| (...) All true. It's the "careful attention to backward compatibility" that bugs me. HTML is supposed to be device independent, so you don't *need* to worry about these details. Sure, tags enable new features without breaking older browsers, but you (...) (26 years ago, 17-Apr-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Typefaces: Verdana vs. Times
|
| (...) Hmm. Seems to me the whole typography thing goes against the grain of how the web was conceived. Isn't HTML supposed to be a description of how a page is rendered, with the particular web browser deciding on fonts? FWIW, Steve's page looks (...) (26 years ago, 16-Apr-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
