🚀 go-pugleaf

> From mjohnson@Apple.COM Wed Mar  7 10:08:19 1990
> ...
> In article <1990Mar6.112240.1783@hellgate.utah.edu> brian@cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> >
> >Why oh why, when Apple does not want you to do something, they tell
> >you not to do it, but never why you should not do it?
> >This is especially annoying when they tell you not to do something
> >they have in the past said you can do...
> >
> >Quote from IM I (10th printing), p. 104:
> >
> >	Resource files aren't limited to applications; anything stored in a
> >	a file can have its own resources.  For instance, an unusual font
> >	used in only oe document can be included in the resource file for that
> >	document rather than in the system resource file.
> >
> >It sounds like a good scheme to me (provided you think resources
> >are a good idea to begin with), why did it change?
> >If it hasn't changed, why is a hypercard stack different?
> >
> 
> Do you always believe everything Inside Macintosh says, especially a volume
> which was written and has not been revised since 1984?  Times have changed
> as systems have changed.  We've documented the reasons for this in Technical
> Notes for some time now.
...(References to Tech notes explaining why)
> So you seek, we do explain why not to do it and the world has changed since
> 1984.  When you read Inside Macintosh (until the day it can be updated), please
> check Technical Notes to see if the advice given in 1984 is still valid in
> 1990.

It is true as you say that the Tech Notes explain this problem (and
thanks for the references).  But I think you missed the point of my
message; Apple frequently says things IN THIS NEWSGROUP like "Don't do
X".  What I (and others responding to the original message) want is
Apple responses to say "Don't do X, because ...".  "Don't do X, for
details see TN###,TN###" would be fine too.

Now to your note:  In summary of the TN's,  I believe the reason one
should not put Fonts in ones applications is that Apple goofed the MAC
to LaserWriter ROM code, and so printing does not necessarily work with
fonts in an application/document resource fork?  I find this odd,
couldn't the System file just contain patches?  Seems odd to give up
the flexibility.  And certainly despite what the TN says there are many
good reasons to want NOT to have the fonts installed.  The recent
posting about the bridge font is a very good example.

Also, I did not (and you can check my letter saved above) say I believe
everything in Inside Mac.  Times have indeed changed, and I believe
Apple should have realized that things change long ago, and kept IM up
to date.  Tech notes are nice as a temporary measure, but who has time
to read 200+ of them?  Further why should I?  I cannot think of another
vendor that tells its customers that in order to look information up
about its product, one should consult the manual of 6 years ago (which
is in reality one 3 manual set, with 2 large patch sets), and then
supplement that information by looking through 200+ large "patches".
If my Sun Tech Rep told me I would have to do that I'd fall in the
floor laughing -- then switch vendors*.  Alas, with Apple, this is not a
funny, fictional situation.

*(No offense intended to Sun here.
	Sun does an excellent job keeping their documentation up to date.)

Brian
-------------
Brian Sturgill
brian@cs.utah.edu