> What is the current status of your sprite fonts plugin?  That seems like
> that would address the size issues.

It was a nice idea, but turned out to have some serious drawbacks.  It
really slowed down IE (it appears that IE renders the entire image
behind the scenes even though only a tiny portion is showing), and
since it was already too slow to begin with, it made it unbearably
so.  Firefox works unexpectedly slowly on the hi-res fonts for
printing.  Also, Opera (at the time) had a bug that prevented the
clipped images from being positioned properly, and so I had to use
background images, and that meant they didn't print unless the user
turned on printing of backgrounds.  I haven't checked recently to see
if Opera has fixed that bug or not.  Firefox on the PC did not show
print previewing correctly, but did print correctly.  On the other
hand, Opera on the PC previews correctly, but prints incorrectly.  (It
seems that print previewing on the PC is not very closely tied to the
actual print results.)  There were also other printing issues, and
since every character has to be put into separate clipping boxes and
aligned properly by hand, there are noticeable baseline alignment
issues at times, and the resulting HTML is considerably more complex.

In the end, it seems that the sprite-based image fonts were just too
fragile and browser dependent, so I have not continued development on
that front.  Indeed, I'm not sure they still work with the current
version of jsMath (I haven't tested them in a while).  On the other
hand, there are new versions of Opera and IE since I worked on the
sprite fonts, so perhaps the situation has improved.

> what is the possibility that
> we could automagically extract the character images on the server side
> and send those, so that from the client, it would appear as if the
> original image fonts plugin was loaded.

Well, it probably could be done through some sort of CGI interface,
but it seems to me that it would be likely slow jsMath down even
further.  It also violates one of the important design decisions for
jsMath, which is not to reply on programs running on the server.  And
if you are going to start running things on the server, why not just
process the complete formula on the server with one of the many
possible choices of tex->image rendering (mimeTeX, BlahTeX, dvipng,
etc)?  It seems pretty inefficient to process individual characters
one at a time.  Maybe it would help to have the results cached, but
they isn't that really just the same as having the individual images
all there initially?

It may be possible to reduce the number of sizes used by perhaps not
use the very largest and smallest sizes, but the large ones are there
for the hi-res printing, so you might have to lose that.  It might
also be possible to leave out every other size, but that would mean
the math might not match the text size quite so well.  You could
probably cut the image font size in half or more that way.  But is it
really worth it?  in these days 100 of 200 GB hard drives, is 80 MB
all that much?  That's about 50 images from my digital camera, or just
about two rolls of traditional film.  I have single sound files that
are larger than that.

The real solution is, of course, to install the jsMath TeX fonts and
avoid the whole issue.  For a private installation (like I expect most
sage installations are), where you are the only person looking at the
web pages that use jsMath, it is reasonable not to install the image
fonts because once you have the jsMath TeX fonts, there is no need for
anything else.  On the other hand, if you are hosting a public site,
where you don't know whether your reader has installed the fonts or
not, then you have to decide whether it is worth the space in order to
give those users a better view of the mathematics on your site.  My
own feeling is that the image fonts are so much superior to the
unicode results that it is worth it to me (because I know that most
people won't install the TeX fonts, so image-font mode turns out to be
the primary mode used by most viewers).  While I would like a method
with a smaller footprint on the server, I haven't found one that is as
reliable and maintainable as the image fonts.

Davide
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to