Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!intercon!news From: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Royal vs Adobe Message-ID: <1990Apr10.154031.10203@intercon.com> Date: 10 Apr 90 15:40:31 GMT References: <1516@mountn.dec.com> Sender: usenet@intercon.com (USENET The Magnificent) Reply-To: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Herndon, VA Lines: 31 There are only two fundamental technical differences between TrueType and Adobe's Type 1, as I see things: 1. TrueType fonts can contain information in addition to character glyph descriptions, such as ductility, contextual forms, kerning, and ligatures. This is mainly of use to the as-yet-nonexistent Line Layout Manager, but will become more important as time goes on, especially with non-Roman writing systems. In my view, this is TrueType's biggest win. 2. Apple has chosen to place imperative hints into TrueType font descriptions themselves, whereas Adobe Type 1 fonts use declarative hints which are interpreted by the rasterizer. This makes Adobe fonts easier to generate, but Apple fonts are more flexible. Of course, Adobe Type 3 fonts give you as much control as you could ever want, so this may end up being a non-issue. I think that speed issues are a red herring. Apple's code is probably more highly optimized (especially for 68000 class machines) that the current ATM, but Bezier cubics aren't *that* much slower than quadratics (especially if you use something like forward differences), and having fewer control points pretty much balances things out. I think they'll co-exist, on the strength of Adobe's font-production software if nothing else. Apple has a lot of catch-up to do before they can compete with the stuff that Adobe licenses to places like Linotype... -- Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation -- "Y'know, you can't have, like, a light, without a dark to stick it in... You know what I'm sayin'?" --Arlo Guthrie