W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webfonts-wg@w3.org > February 2011

Re: WOFF FAQ (action 29)

From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 17:47:44 -0800
Message-ID: <4D4CAC40.5040004@tiro.com>
CC: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
Christopher wrote:

> What's your reasoning for using the word "typography" e.g. "Web typography" and "served typography"? To me, this makes WOFF sound more ambitious than it is; it's really just for delivering a font, right? Along those lines, I'd change the title of part 3 to "What are the benefits of Web fonts?"

I had originally used the phrase 'Web served typography' throughout the 
FAQ, but had to revise it in this draft to take into account the wider 
definition of 'Web document' that includes locally stored EPUBs using 
@font-face with linked fonts.

I used the word typography because I think we need to stress that the 
use of @font-face and the availability of linked fonts -- especially in 
conjunction with the CSS3 Font Module -- makes possible something more 
than has been available, typographically, on the Web before this. Of 
course, what people have been doing with Verdana etc. until now is also 
typography of a kind, but insofar as appropriate selection from a choice 
of typefaces is the prerequisite for many kinds of typography, we are 
looking at something new. If you can think of a better way to express 
this, I'd be interested.

> Your section "What isn't WOFF" very quickly continues to describe what WOFF is. ("A WOFF package, or wrapper, contains ...") I wonder if it would be better to put those descriptions in the preceding section.

Yes, I'll move this, but might reiterate it for emphasis in second section.

> I understand what you're thinking in part 3 (benefits), but many of the listed benefits are not unique to web fonts. (Searching and accessibility are possible with "regular" HTML text.)

They are unique to web fonts in the context of varied typography, i.e. 
they permit things that were not possible with an image of text in, say, 
Garamond Premier Pro. I'll try to clarify this in the text.

> In part 4, would it be clearer to the average reader to use the term "cross-linked" instead of "hotlinked"?

I'm not sure. Which is common parlance?

> Part 6:
> "Browsers that donít yet support WOFF will use the next installed font on your font list" --> "Browsers that donít yet support WOFF will use the next available font on your font list"

Good. Thanks.


> Part 9:
> "the CSS @font-face syntax" --> "the CSS @font-face rule"

Good.

> "has been a standard for a decade" --> "has been a standard for over a decade" (or "since 1997", or is it '98?)

Good.

> Part 10:
> "In November 2011" --> "In November 2010"

Heh. Yeah.

> Part 12:
> "a license or service fee is paid by the content provider" --> "a license or service fee is paid by the content author or provider"

Good.

[I still find the common use of 'author' in the context of Web author 
odd. I think in terms of publishers, albeit in a medium in which the 
publisher may also be the author.]

> Part 13:
> "A combination of font subsetting and WOFF compression means that the impact on page load is minimal. Users may expect reasonable speeds." WOFF does not include any facility for subsetting, so I don't know if it's appropriate to include that. And "reasonable speeds" is pretty vague. In fact, a very large font, compressed by WOFF, could still be a pretty hefty download. Maybe we should say that compression will help, but download size will depend on the font.

'Font subsetting' is explicitly distinct from 'WOFF compression'. The 
point is that they can be used together to reduce the impact on page 
load times. I agree that 'reasonable speeds' is vague, and like your 
suggestion on how to improve this section.


Thanks for the detailed comments.

JH
Received on Saturday, 5 February 2011 01:48:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 5 February 2011 01:48:26 GMT