Re: Line spacing not working

Andreas Prilop wrote:

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Neil Gould wrote:

Browsers are completely independent of how something will print on
paper Browsers render pages to the video system, period.

View and print
http://www.user.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp-1.html
with both Ιnternet Εxplorer and Firefox (МЅ Windows).

Perhaps I was unclear. Your example page is rendered by my browser to my

screen, and whatever happens after that to get it to print is dependent on
system variables beyond the browser's scope of control. Suppose my printer
doesn't have those fonts, or has a different version of those fonts than my
computer (and they aren't set to automatically download the "soft" fonts),
or any number of other variables that the browser has no access to?

--
Best,

Neil

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Neil Gould wrote:

View and print
http://www.user.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp-1.html

Your example page is rendered by my browser to my screen,
and whatever happens after that to get it to print is dependent
on system variables beyond the browser's scope of control.

Υou have Νot done it! Οtherwise you would have noticed
that Firefox prints the Windows bitmap font Courier
whereas Ιnternet Εxplorer substitutes Courier Νew.

Υou can see this also in “Print Preview”.

Andreas Prilop wrote:

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Neil Gould wrote:

View and print
http://www.user.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp-1.html

Your example page is rendered by my browser to my screen,
and whatever happens after that to get it to print is dependent
on system variables beyond the browser's scope of control.

Υou have Νot done it! Οtherwise you would have noticed
that Firefox prints the Windows bitmap font Courier
whereas Ιnternet Εxplorer substitutes Courier Νew.

Υou can see this also in “Print Preview”.

Actually, I did look at it with print preview, and the problem is much worse

than you describe. In IE, the page shows in Print Preview as it does on
screen, while in FF, the screen rendering is quite different from the Print
Preview of the page, and for some reason, the Courier font is bold. So, I
suppose you are providing another example of why the web designer is at a
disadvantage when trying to control printed output?

--
Best,

Neil

In article <hd25dv$24jn$1 (AT) adenine (DOT) netfront.net>,
"Neil Gould" <neil (AT) myplaceofwork (DOT) com> wrote:

Andreas Prilop wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, Neil Gould wrote:

View and print
http://www.user.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp-1.html

Your example page is rendered by my browser to my screen,
and whatever happens after that to get it to print is dependent
on system variables beyond the browser's scope of control.

Î¥ou have Ρot done it! ΃therwise you would have noticed
that Firefox prints the Windows bitmap font Courier
whereas Î˙nternet Îxplorer substitutes Courier Ρew.

Î¥ou can see this also in ╲Print Preview╡.

Actually, I did look at it with print preview, and the problem is much worse
than you describe. In IE, the page shows in Print Preview as it does on
screen, while in FF, the screen rendering is quite different from the Print
Preview of the page, and for some reason, the Courier font is bold. So, I
suppose you are providing another example of why the web designer is at a
disadvantage when trying to control printed output?

One can control things to a certain extent at least by having separate
style sheets for screen and print.

(btw, I noticed you used italics in your example, any particular
reason?)

--
dorayme

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, dorayme wrote:

User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)

View and print
http://www.user.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp-1.html

btw, I noticed you used italics in your example, any particular
reason?

You cannot see this on Macintosh.
On MS Windows, "Courier New" is a TrueType font family whereas
"Courier" is an old bitmap font. You can see the difference
more easily with italic type.

Therefore authors should never specify
font-family: Courier, "Courier New", monospace
but only
font-family: "Courier New", Courier, monospace

Unfortunately, authors on Macintosh or Linux are unaware of
this problem.

--
Bugs in Internet Explorer 7 & 8
http://www.user.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/ie7-bugs.html

Andreas Prilop wrote:

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, dorayme wrote:

User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)

View and print
http://www.user.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp-1.html

btw, I noticed you used italics in your example, any particular
reason?

You cannot see this on Macintosh.
On MS Windows, "Courier New" is a TrueType font family whereas
"Courier" is an old bitmap font. You can see the difference
more easily with italic type.

I wondered where you were going with this thread...

One can not presume the type of the fonts installed on any system. For
example, fonts on my systems are only Type 1, OpenType (PostScript), or
TrueType -- there are no bitmap fonts at all. So, the Courier family on my
system is a Type 1 font (and has been for the last 25 or so years). This is
not uncommon for those who create documents for print using any platform.

Therefore authors should never specify
font-family: Courier, "Courier New", monospace
but only
font-family: "Courier New", Courier, monospace

The font used for "monospace" depends on how systems are set up. Perhaps you

are limiting your comments to those that are using an off-the-shelf system,
but web designers should be cogizant that such setups are not universal.

--
Best,

Neil

In article
<Pine.LNX.4.64.0911091702180.27030 (AT) sarge (DOT) rrzn.uni-hannover.de>,
Andreas Prilop <prilop4321 (AT) trashmail (DOT) net> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, dorayme wrote:

User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)

View and print
http://www.user.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp-1.html

btw, I noticed you used italics in your example, any particular
reason?

You cannot see this on Macintosh.
On MS Windows, "Courier New" is a TrueType font family whereas
"Courier" is an old bitmap font. You can see the difference
more easily with italic type.

Therefore authors should never specify
font-family: Courier, "Courier New", monospace
but only
font-family: "Courier New", Courier, monospace

Unfortunately, authors on Macintosh or Linux are unaware of
this problem.

OK, thanks. I will try to remember this. Does this not mean that Macs
like mine who have both fonts are to be condemned to New Courier for
websites? New Courier is an efficient monospace font, taking up less
space for sure, but lacking that old fashioned typewriter look.

--
dorayme

In article <doraymeRidThis-7CD692.09372310112009 (AT) news (DOT) albasani.net>,
dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

In article
Pine.LNX.4.64.0911091702180.27030 (A...ni-hannover.de>,
Andreas Prilop <prilop4321 (AT) trashmail (DOT) net> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, dorayme wrote:

User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)

View and print
http://www.user.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp-1.html

btw, I noticed you used italics in your example, any particular
reason?

You cannot see this on Macintosh.
On MS Windows, "Courier New" is a TrueType font family whereas
"Courier" is an old bitmap font. You can see the difference
more easily with italic type.

All versions of MS Windows, or only specific ones? I am somewhat
surprised to find that MS has not upgraded Courier - the change
from bitmap to TrueType Courier happened on the Mac eons ago!

Therefore authors should never specify
font-family: Courier, "Courier New", monospace
but only
font-family: "Courier New", Courier, monospace

Unfortunately, authors on Macintosh or Linux are unaware of
this problem.

OK, thanks. I will try to remember this. Does this not mean that Macs
like mine who have both fonts are to be condemned to New Courier for
websites? New Courier is an efficient monospace font, taking up less
space for sure, but lacking that old fashioned typewriter look.

How often do you actually use Courier, and what do you use if for?
On my sites, it's only ever used for code snippets which are more
likely to be copy/pasted; neither are they likely to be presented
in italics, so it seems likely that windows bitmap Courier would
not degrade as much? (I do actually remember being disappointed
the first time I saw italic Courier coming off my ImageWriter II,
but that was a long time ago!)

David Stone wrote:

In article<doraymeRidThis-7CD692.09372310112009 (AT) news (DOT) albasani.net>,
dorayme<doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

In article
Pine.LNX.4.64.0911091702180.27030 (A...ni-hannover.de>,
Andreas Prilop<prilop4321 (AT) trashmail (DOT) net> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, dorayme wrote:

User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)

View and print
http://www.user.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp-1.html

btw, I noticed you used italics in your example, any particular
reason?

You cannot see this on Macintosh.
On MS Windows, "Courier New" is a TrueType font family whereas
"Courier" is an old bitmap font. You can see the difference
more easily with italic type.

All versions of MS Windows, or only specific ones? I am somewhat
surprised to find that MS has not upgraded Courier - the change
from bitmap to TrueType Courier happened on the Mac eons ago!

1) Legacy
2) Bitmap fonts *.FON files are used for CMD window and boot sequence.
Many of these puppies where around in old DOS days...

8514fix.fon
8514fix0.fon
8514fixe.fon
8514fixg.fon
8514fixr.fon
8514fixt.fon
8514oem.fon
8514oem0.fon
8514oeme.fon
8514oemg.fon
8514oemr.fon
8514oemt.fon
8514sys.fon
8514sys0.fon
8514syse.fon
8514sysg.fon
8514sysr.fon
8514syst.fon
85775.fon
85855.fon
85f1257.fon
85s1257.fon
app775.fon
app850.fon
app850_0.fon
app852.fon
app855.fon
app857.fon
app866.fon
cga40737.fon
cga40850.fon
cga40852.fon
cga40854.fon
cga40857.fon
cga40866.fon
cga40869.fon
cga40woa.fon
cga80737.fon
cga80850.fon
cga80852.fon
cga80857.fon
cga80866.fon
cga80869.fon
cga80woa.fon
coue1257.fon
couf1257.fon
coure.fon
couree.fon
coureg.fon
courer.fon
couret.fon
courf.fon
courfe.fon
courfg.fon
courfr.fon
courft.fon
courf__0.fon
dos737.fon
dosapp.fon
dosapp_0.fon
ega40737.fon
ega40850.fon
ega40852.fon
ega40857.fon
ega40866.fon
ega40869.fon
ega40woa.fon
ega80737.fon
ega80850.fon
ega80852.fon
ega80857.fon
ega80866.fon
ega80869.fon
ega80woa.fon
sere1257.fon
serf1257.fon
serife.fon
serifee.fon
serifeg.fon
serifer.fon
serifet.fon
seriff.fon
seriffe.fon
seriffg.fon
seriffr.fon
serifft.fon
seriff_0.fon
smae1257.fon
smaf1257.fon
smalle.fon
smallee.fon
smalleg.fon
smaller.fon
smallet.fon
smallf.fon
smallfe.fon
smallfg.fon
smallfr.fon
smallft.fon
smallf_0.fon
ssee1257.fon
ssef1257.fon
sserife.fon
sserifee.fon
sserifeg.fon
sserifer.fon
sserifet.fon
sseriff.fon
sseriff0.fon
sseriffe.fon
sseriffg.fon
sseriffr.fon
sserifft.fon
symbole.fon
vga737.fon
vga775.fon
vga850.fon
vga850_0.fon
vga852.fon
vga855.fon
vga857.fon
vga860.fon
vga860_0.fon
vga863.fon
vga863_0.fon
vga865.fon
vga865_0.fon
vga866.fon
vga869.fon
vgaf1257.fon
vgafix.fon
vgafixe.fon
vgafixg.fon
vgafixr.fon
vgafixt.fon
vgafix_0.fon
vgaoem.fon
vgaoem_0.fon
vgas1257.fon
vgasys.fon
vgasyse.fon
vgasysg.fon
vgasysr.fon
vgasyst.fon




--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article <no.email-2F572D.08525210112009 (AT) news1 (DOT) chem.utoronto.ca>,
David Stone <no.email (AT) domain (DOT) invalid> wrote:

In article <doraymeRidThis-7CD692.09372310112009 (AT) news (DOT) albasani.net>,
dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

In article
Pine.LNX.4.64.0911091702180.27030 (A...ni-hannover.de>,
Andreas Prilop <prilop4321 (AT) trashmail (DOT) net> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, dorayme wrote:
....
All versions of MS Windows, or only specific ones? I am somewhat
surprised to find that MS has not upgraded Courier - the change
from bitmap to TrueType Courier happened on the Mac eons ago!

Therefore authors should never specify
font-family: Courier, "Courier New", monospace
but only
font-family: "Courier New", Courier, monospace

Unfortunately, authors on Macintosh or Linux are unaware of
this problem.

OK, thanks. I will try to remember this. Does this not mean that Macs
like mine who have both fonts are to be condemned to New Courier for
websites? New Courier is an efficient monospace font, taking up less
space for sure, but lacking that old fashioned typewriter look.

How often do you actually use Courier, and what do you use if for?

For stuff that goes in the CODE element, for when I make like a 1940s
crime thriller writer, for certain graphic art projects...

On my sites, it's only ever used for code snippets which are more
likely to be copy/pasted; neither are they likely to be presented
in italics, so it seems likely that windows bitmap Courier would
not degrade as much? (I do actually remember being disappointed
the first time I saw italic Courier coming off my ImageWriter II,
but that was a long time ago!)

Ah the ImageWriter II... a blast from my past. Btw, I still use a fairly
old Mac printer: 4/600 laser (smallish job by the standards of the day
it came out).

I forget now, was it Courier in the wonderful typewriter scenes in the
film Atonement? Perhaps the other David (Segal) will know.

--
dorayme