- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 22:06:07 -0400
- To: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>, Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>
- CC: WOFF Working Group <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On Monday, August 09, 2010 9:32 PM Dave Crossland wrote: > > > > - Because of the per table compression, a browser can > download all or only part of the WOFF. > > - ** This is purely hypothetical. Any better > examples? ** > > I think this is a GREAT example - because the idea is worthy of > implementation and if font publishers and web developers understand > the idea and ask browser developers to implement it, they will, but if > no one understands that this will be possible then the browser > developers may not implement it. > > So yes, please do include this in the presentation and bill it has a > instrumental reason why WOFF _can_ be "better" than TTF/SVG/EOT. > Hypothetically, the same could be done with TTF/OTF fonts - you can request to download offset table followed by the table directory followed by individual tables, etc. I am not sure though if there is a practical benefit in doing this - many times downloading a whole binary file in one HTTP request may be faster than issuing multiple HTTP byte range requests. There are many reasons why WOFF *is* better but I am not convinced this is one of them. > > > > - This would be useful to web > developers‚ "What font is that?" > > This would also be useful for web users who may also ask, "What font is > that?" > Absolutely agree. Regards, Vlad
Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2010 02:08:53 UTC