I understand that TmsRmn is much faster than Times Roman (or Times New
Roman or whatever the vector fonts are called). Bitmaps fonts have
always been faster than vector fonts. However, since another poster
said that 12pt TmsRmn is not the same as 12pt Times New Roman, my vote
is that you do NOT substitute fonts for scaling. In fact, I think
bitmap fonts should be scaled as bitmap fonts.
WarpSans is not supposed to be used as a normal font. OS/2-specific
pages like os2.org should be allowed to specify WarpSans, provided they
can convince the browser to stick to 9pt regarldess of how it's
configured. But anyone who specifies WarpSans as his default font for
all web sites is a moron. If he does it, it should be scaled, not
forced to remain at 9pt.
If the user specifies TmsRmn, then it should also be scaled, but as a
bitmap font. This means that at larger point sizes, it will be blocky.
So what? That's what bitmap fonts do!
On my 233MHz Pentium Pro, Netscape 4.61 with Times New Roman renders
text very fast. If I set it to TmsRmn, I barely notice a difference.
Does that mean that NS substitues it with Times New Roman automatically?
BTW, is Times New Roman a True Type or PostScript font?
