(0.5) that supports (everything) any typographical engineers ever wanted past and future
Bitmap formats are out from clause -1, Office file formats disqualify from clause 0, Markdown doesn't satisfy clause 0.5. Otherwise a Word .doc format covers most of clauses 1-4.
> (0) that reproduce everywhere on any OS perfectly
Can somebody explain why this isn't the case for HTML? I'm frequently in a situation where a website that mimics printed pages fails to render the same between Firefox and Chrome. I wish to understand the primary culprit here. I thought all of the CSS units are completely defined?
I think this is the result of 1) it being a moving target and 2) HTML and CSS being a de facto standard rather than de jure, where the (differing) implementations define at least part of the spec.
You also can't really embed fonts in a HTML file, you rely on linking instead -- and those can rot. Apparently there has been some work towards it (base64 encoded), but support may vary. And you need to embed the whole font, I don't think you can do character subsets easily.
(0) that reproduce everywhere on any OS perfectly
(0.5) that supports (everything) any typographical engineers ever wanted past and future
Bitmap formats are out from clause -1, Office file formats disqualify from clause 0, Markdown doesn't satisfy clause 0.5. Otherwise a Word .doc format covers most of clauses 1-4.