Declaring which system font to use for epubs, possible?

[bookman156]

AFAIK you can only have full URLs (not relative) that are simply internet links. Any relative path only works inside the epub.

Yes, of course, that makes sense.

I wonder if you can reference a webfont with an absolute URL if your reader works with woff2 fonts? Of course it would be no good for an Asian font, in any case I don't believe there is such a thing as an Asian webfont as they'd just be too massive.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by bookman156

I wonder if you can reference a webfont with an absolute URL if your reader works with woff2 fonts? Of course it would be no good for an Asian font, in any case I don't believe there is such a thing as an Asian webfont as they'd just be too massive.

I think the reading application just opens the link, assuming:
* The application (app or on dedicated ereader) can open a link at all. Some ereaders can't so now we have added a QR code (works pointing phone at ereader, monitor or tablet) any place a URL is in the text and there are no URLs in the story now except internally to a page(s) with back links. Ideally after each chapter if footnotes for readers with no link following.
* * You'd need a WiFi or other route to the Internet. Even if you could load a font that way, a high chance of having nothing given portable nature of ereaders. A phone is more likely to work, but I never have cell data on my phone.
* I can't imagine a dedicated ereader loading font from the Internet. Maybe some apps can, but many apps don't even use embedded or local fonts referenced by CSS, just whatever the mad app programmer has decided.

[bookman156]

I doubt it would work on an ereader, but it might be worth a quick experiment some time to see if a webfont works in an Android epub reader such as Lithium or PocketBook Reader, or a PC-based reader like Foliate, just out of interest.

[Quoth]

Elephant in room. No-one anywhere should use 3rd party web fonts. The least is for a website to install needed fonts locally. It's even a sort of arrogance to use that rather than whatever the browser has locally.
So using a webfont on the fly is even worse outside the browser. Issues of privacy, bandwidth, latency and of course the Internet is not always available to an app.

So personally even writing about it is wasting time. It's pointless even if it sort of worked. Feel free to experiment.

[bookman156]

Elephant in room. No-one anywhere should use 3rd party web fonts. The least is for a website to install needed fonts locally. It's even a sort of arrogance to use that rather than whatever the browser has locally.

I don't get the arrogance idea at all, but certainly a website should provide its own webfonts rather than link to privacy abusing Google fonts. I use webfonts extensively. I don't feel arrogant, I feel like I'm catering for people who, like me, enjoy good typography. I had several decades of using system fonts (Verdana, Arial, wow, what a choice), glad to move on. But if people want to burden the web with it all being Times New Roman, Georgia, and Verdana then their lack of arrogance (huh?) is matched only by their lack of adventure.

[JSWolf]

Ion a Kobo reading ePub, you can reference fonts outside of the ePub that are in the fonts directory. With KePub, you have to have the font embedded in the ePub. You cannot reference a font on the net.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by bookman156

but certainly a website should provide its own webfonts rather than link to privacy abusing Google fonts.

That's the important bit. I've a lot of sites using CMS and 3rd party themes. It's a pain editing those themes to stop them using external fonts. I know how to install fonts on my own sites but so far I have not needed to. I check what the sites are like on phone, tablet and PC and on PC vary window size. I think a fail by big media sites that they serve separate mobile & desktop versions based on Browser info rather than screen size, so I prefer so-called Responsive themes. Best simply no fixed layout, true flowing, but a theme that replaces visible menu items with hamburger drop down and moves extra columns to inline automatically for a small screen is a good compromise.

Arrogant is a bit strong, but pale grey text on white or dark grey on black is stupid. And there are a lot of pointless Site Served fonts. Simple is always better as it's the content that counts, not how pretty a first glance is.
Also the default fonts on most systems are not that bad now compared with 1994.

There is a lot of fancy stuff done on printed novels that simply detracts from reading, like over decorated page numbers, headers, footers, drop caps and/or small caps at start of chapters, over decorative scene breaks instead of extra top margin/padding on the paragraph, ~ or * * *.
Then it gets really stupid when publishers try to exactly copy this in an ebook. It detracts from ability to read smoothly and some or all doesn't work on ereaders and apps.

So even if using embedded fonts in an ebook or server fonts on a web page I make sure the ebook still works on an app or reader that either doesn't support embedded fonts at all, or might have that turned off. I'll check a webpage with bits blocked by uMatrix that it is still readable and mostly works. Sites that give a blank page unless 3rd party scripts are enabled are nasty and 3rd party scripts are a security risk; they have been used on CNN and BBC to serve malware.
I don't explicitly block adverts (images, text and a link served from same domain without a script is never blocked), but 3rd party scripts are blocked. Especially the spying tracking scripts on all those Social Media Icons. If you must, just put an image and a link as the SM supplied samples are evil!

[bookman156]

Arrogant is a bit strong, but pale grey text on white or dark grey on black is stupid.

Couldn't agree with you more there.

I started using webfonts to supply specialist glyphs, but once I'd done that and seen how well it works I just thought, hang on, why rely on uncertain system fonts any more for the rest of it as well.

Also the default fonts on most systems are not that bad now compared with 1994.

Apart from Constantia, Corbel, Candara, and Calibri on Windows machines, which aren't actually specified much, it is still pretty much Verdana, Arial, Times New Roman and Georgia. The last one isn't a bad font, and Verdana's not bad either, but they're tired out after two decades of using them. The reason many websites don't use better fonts is because they haven't found out how to, because they use templates. I design from scratch, 'hand-roll' as it used to be known, before automation in website production became the norm and hardly anyone knew anything about web design any more, despite having a 'professional looking' website that is just a template.

So even if using embedded fonts in an ebook or server fonts on a web page I make sure the ebook still works on an app or reader that either doesn't support embedded fonts at all, or might have that turned off. I'll check a webpage with bits blocked by uMatrix that it is still readable and mostly works.

I agree, that is only sensible.

Sites that give a blank page unless 3rd party scripts are enabled are nasty and 3rd party scripts are a security risk; they have been used on CNN and BBC to serve malware.

I also design sites without any JavaScript use at all. Most sites are overburdened with it and will often appear as a blank page to those using the NoScript plugin for security and privacy. Not a good look for an international organisation.

[Quoth]

I've books over 100 years old. The physical book, not just the content. The paper is better on most pre-1940 hardbacks than any paperback I have more than 30 years old.
Decent fonts don't get tired out.

I agree that Verdana for headings is better than Arial, which isn't bad for what it was designed for, lower than 200 dpi san-serif body text. Georgia is far better than Time New Roman, as long as the dpi is better than 150. The Times New Roman, like Arial is designed for lower dpi screens.
Lots of people with larger HD res screens, or low resolution "Netbooks" or cheap tablets are on less than 150 dpi. Some are on less than 125 dpi. My 2002 laptop is 133 dpi 1600 x 1200. We went backwards with 17" 1920 x 1080 and 17" 1366 x 768 or worse laptops.

Verdana, Arial and Georgia are still fine. Perhaps Times New Roman for smaller size text.
Then there are the various fonts on Android and ereaders, but if a fallback sans, serif etc is specified then something sensible is usually rendered.

I still read paper books as well as ebooks. I convert long websites or multiple sites on the same topic into LO Writer and apply my own styles. Extra Save As in docx and then Calibre to epub.

There are plenty of nicer serif fonts than Georgia, but they need good quality paper printing, Neither POD or my 300 dpi ereaders are good enough, though the laser printer is fine. My own Brother laser printer is much better than POD I've had from anyone. However now we proof even PDF for paper print on 23″ 4K screen and a Kobo Elipsa. I might get an Amazon/Kindle Scribe to proof PDFs if people think it's not too silly, or wait till Kobo also does 300 dpi eInk. The 227 dpi is not quite good enough. I might also print 8 pages (4 sheets) in duplex on the Laser printer at actual size to check registration through a page is working.

[bookman156]

Decent fonts don't get tired out.

I wouldn't call Verdana and Georgia 'decent', just not terrible, like Arial and Times New Roman.

But tastes also change.

And some fonts didn't make the transition from metal to digital very well. Centaur is a good example of that, the digital version coming from the font matrix rather than from the way it looked when impressed into the rag of the paper. One big publisher proudly does all of its books in it and remains blind to the need to recommission its digitisation, as happened with Bembo (poor in digital) when Bembo Book (as letterpress Bembo looks) was created.

[Quoth]

I'm sure none of my 100s of pre 1940s hardback books use Verdana or Georgia. I doubt any of the older paperbacks do either.
Georgia is from 1993 and is like Times New Roman designed for lower DPI screens, but perhaps works better than Times New Roman for 150 dpi or more.

Though old printing can't easily do even 200 dpi for images, you need 600 dpi to 1200 dpi on digital printing to get mechanical print quality. The eink is different from both laser (more shades) and CRT/LCD/Plasma/OLED (dramatically less shades). Addressed per dot colour screens can do subpixel addressing which works because our eyes are poorer at colour than mono resolution (thus we don't see blue and red edges) and western fonts look better with increased horizontal resolution. But it doesn't work except for monochrome high contrast text and if DPI is too low you see the fringing. If there is higher than normal DPI you don't need it. Hence HIDPI/Retina mode should have it off as if you using a CRT or eink.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Quoth

I'm sure none of my 100s of pre 1940s hardback books use Verdana or Georgia. I doubt any of the older paperbacks do either.
Georgia is from 1993 and is like Times New Roman designed for lower DPI screens, but perhaps works better than Times New Roman for 150 dpi or more.

Though old printing can't easily do even 200 dpi for images, you need 600 dpi to 1200 dpi on digital printing to get mechanical print quality. The eink is different from both laser (more shades) and CRT/LCD/Plasma/OLED (dramatically less shades). Addressed per dot colour screens can do subpixel addressing which works because our eyes are poorer at colour than mono resolution (thus we don't see blue and red edges) and western fonts look better with increased horizontal resolution. But it doesn't work except for monochrome high contrast text and if DPI is too low you see the fringing. If there is higher than normal DPI you don't need it. Hence HIDPI/Retina mode should have it off as if you using a CRT or eink.

FWIW, I have a lot of older, sometimes collectible, sometimes not, printed books. For example, of all the cursed things, not only a very odd old set of Dickens, but the "Maida's Little Yadda books," as well. And that eclectic sort of thing. Some of my oldest books are the best. The Dickens was printed century before last, the 1900's and it's in great shape. The Maidas are hanging on by a thread, really. I mean...not literally but close. Those are the 30's-40's. Gosh, I guess 80-90 years ago now. I should be pleasantly surprised that they are still with us!

BUT the type...the type survives and thrives. They are very readable, all of them. (The type size on that older Dickens, yowzers, that's a bit hard on ye olden peepers, but I can still barely manage. TG for Kindles.)

Hitch

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Hitch

BUT the type...the type survives and thrives. They are very readable, all of them. (The type size on that older Dickens, yowzers, that's a bit hard on ye olden peepers, but I can still barely manage. TG for Kindles.)

Is an 8″ ereader better now than “Large Print” editions? But perhaps not everyone needing large print would be happy with an eReader and might need a cell/mobile version. I have a friend with macular degeneration and “Large Print” editions aren't good enough for him. He has a 10″ Lenovo yoga tab with SIM slot/mobile as a phone. Cost about €300 new with no contract, so cheaper than many subsidised phones.

I do find some paperbacks have too small print and also some are poorly printed so unless it's a Series I have a lot of on paper I tend now to buy the ebook. Also what's great about eBooks, having the programming & publish background is that it's trivial to fix stupid formatting. I'll stop buying from any source that prevents that.