Henrik Gemal Reporter
	Description • 24 years ago

If could be nice if TrueDoc were added to Mozilla so that Mozilla supported the 
viewing of TrueDoc fonts.

Al alternative could be the Bitstrems new font engine called Font Fusion
http://bitstream.com/products/developer/fontfusion/index.html

	Heikki Toivonen (remove -bugzilla when emailing directly)
	Comment 1 • 24 years ago

Please triage.

	Johnny Stenback (:jst)
	Comment 2 • 24 years ago

Reassigning to the compositor component, not sure if that's the right one, if
it's not please reassign to whomever should own this.

	Kevin McCluskey (gone)
	Comment 3 • 24 years ago

Setting milestone to future.

	Henrik Gemal Reporter
	Comment 4 • 23 years ago

RFE cleanup. RFE is already indicated by the Severity field...Sorry for the 
spam!

	Christopher Blizzard (:blizzard)
	Comment 5 • 23 years ago

*** Bug 101109 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

	Christopher Aillon (sabbatical, not receiving bugmail)
	Comment 6 • 23 years ago

Dupe of 52746?

	Greg K.
	Comment 7 • 23 years ago

They're on the same topic, Christopher, but bug 52746 is a general complaint
about the lack of dynamic fonts in Mozilla, and this bug is a specific RFE for
implementing TrueDoc support.

	Vassilii Khachaturov
	Comment 8 • 23 years ago

I have called BitStream to go open source with the TrueDoc PFR technology
for the benefit of the Mozilla project, and they indicated they're ready
to do so. Please see my article on this topic at

http://www.tarunz.org/~vassilii/BitStream.html

	Kevin McCluskey (gone)
	Comment 9 • 23 years ago

Build moving all existing future-P3 bugs to future-P4.

	Russell McOrmond
	Comment 10 • 22 years ago

  Just wanting to offer more support for this enhancement.  It is embarassing
that Mozilla, the "most standards compliant browser" (Quoted from many
Mozilla.org developers ;-)  doesn't display these fonts.

  Of particular interest to me are sites in other languages such as:

http://www.anandabazar.com/no_bangla.htm

	Greg K.
	Comment 11 • 22 years ago

Please, no evangelical comments. If you want this (and can't code it), just vote
for it.

	Henrik Gemal Reporter
	Comment 12 • 20 years ago

From the spec at bitstream.com:
"Unfortunately, we do not build the browsers, nor can we control how they handle
fonts, so we can no longer support WebFont Wizard for every release of every
browser. We would like to support Netscape Navigator 6 and 7 (and future
versions), as well as future versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer, but we
cannot. Bitstream suggests you contact Microsoft and AOL and encourage them to
support dynamic fonts in the new releases of their browsers."

	timeless
	Comment 13 • 19 years ago

*** Bug 245435 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

	timeless
	Comment 14 • 19 years ago

*** Bug 165508 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

	Damian Yerrick
	Comment 15 • 19 years ago

Kevin McCluskey is gone.

	Xavier Robin
	Comment 16 • 16 years ago

Now that Firefox supports remote TrueType/OpenType fonts, is TrueDoc support still needed? Would TrueDoc support bring any added value? 
TrueType/OpenType seems to be widely accepted standards. Who would use TrueDoc? Why would they do so when widely accepted standards exist?

I believe WONTFIXing this bug should be considered.

	David Marín
	Comment 17 • 16 years ago

TrueDoc is a standard, and it was supported by Netscape 4.x.
There are still webs that are using it. Saying that Firefox shouldn't support TrueDoc because it already supports TrueType/OpenType, would be as saying that it shouldn't neither support GIF graphics, as it already supports PNG graphics.

	Zack Weinberg (:zwol)
	Comment 18 • 13 years ago

The present design philosophy is to try to *minimize* the number of data formats accepted by the browser, as this reduces attack surface and maintenance burden while improving interoperability.

The TrueDoc format also has significant disadvantages compared to font formats that we do support:

* It appears to be a cut-down, reencoded subset of the PostScript Type1 font standard, not supporting many features needed for modern typography and world languages.  Its selling point was compression, but we have WOFF for that now.
* Bitstream has long since discontinued any support for it.
* There was never a free-software encoder for the format.
* It does not appear to have had significant uptake on the public Web.

For these reasons, we are not going to add support for this format.  However, we might consider accepting patches that added hooks that allowed JavaScript programs to process unrecognized font formats.  That would permit experimentation with new font formats on the web, without increasing our attack surface or maintenance burden.