Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies
From: gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Royal Fonts vs. ATM
Message-ID: <8400217@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 9 Jan 90 17:39:01 GMT
References: <844@sahiways.gov.au>
Lines: 20
Nf-ID: #R:sahiways.gov.au:844:m.cs.uiuc.edu:8400217:000:916
Nf-From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies    Jan  8 18:36:00 1990


/* Written 10:32 am  Dec 18, 1989 by peters@sahiways.gov.au in m.cs.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.mac */
> I can see Apple will continue to push Royal font technology, mainly due to
> their pig-headedness.  Apple should have switched to Display PostScript aeons
> ago, relegating QuickDraw to the background for compatibility's sake.

Are you on Adobe's payroll?

You've got it backwards.  Royal exists because of ADOBE's
pig-headedness.  Apple wanted to enhance fonts on the Mac.  Adobe
would not release their font-hints methods.  So Apple was forced to do
its own outline font technology to enhance the macintosh.

This forced Adobe to release the hints, and ATM is Adobe's last-ditch
effort to avoid getting creamed by their earlier pig-headedness.


Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois
1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801      
ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu   UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gillies