Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev. Bob
Low blow there…
|
Quote:
Technically true. Kobo could, if they so desired, provide only Comic Sans and map it to all five generics if they so chose. I think they’d get rather a lot of complaints, though.
I’ll even go so far as to say that it’s reasonable for a platform to slide on “fantasy” and “cursive” defaults… because those definitions are so vague that they’re so rarely used; a designer has no reasonable expectation about what specifying either of those will look like, and that makes a lot of difference. But monospace? There are plenty of reasons to use that, so much so that browsers have allowed users to define it since before CSS was even imagined. Users and publishers alike have a reasonable expectation that a system capable of handling CSS will have a default monospace font installed.
|
And all that is my point. The standards don't actually state that there absolutely must be a monospace font available and used. It just says the text marked as such has to be rendered using something. If the app doesn't include one, or the base OS doesn't include one, then
Quote:
|
Bottom line, including true monospace support should be a no-brainer. It’s not like this is a new or uncommon use case, and monospace fonts aren’t exactly rare.
|
I don't quite agree. The only books I have in my library that mention monospace are test books. Books someone has created purely to test how monospace works on these devices. If Kobo are looking at stats like that, which is zero purchased books out of 600 and 0 books out of several thousand from other sources, it isn't surprising they think supporting monospace isn't very important.
That text is quite different to what you pointed to before. And it is a lot less restrictive. The first one is pretty much "You really, really should do this". The one for ePub 2 is more a "it is a good idea to do this".