W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Font embedding problem

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:19:59 +0200
Message-ID: <38F43FBF.644623D4@w3.org>
To: Ash <ash@sch.bme.hu>
CC: www-font@w3.org


Ash wrote:
> 
> > Where in the CSS specification does it say that support for the opentype
> > format is  required?
> >
> Well, actually under section 15.3.5 it says the following (hmmm... yes, it
> also says that it's just _likely_ to be used ;-)
> 
> An initial list of format strings defined by this specification and
> representing formats likely to be used by implementations on various
> platforms is:
> 
>       String  Font Format  Examples of common extensions
>       "truedoc-pfr"  TrueDocT Portable Font Resource  .pfr
>       "embedded-opentype"  Embedded OpenType  .eot
>       "type-1"  PostScriptT Type 1  .pfb, .pfa
>       "truetype"  TrueType  .ttf
>       "opentype"  OpenType, including TrueType Open  .ttf
>       "truetype-gx"  TrueType with GX extensions
>       "speedo"  Speedo
>       "intellifont"  Intellifont

Those (in the absence of MIME types for fonts - we didn't have five years
to devote to fighting for *those* ) are format strings - ways to indicate
what font type is available at a given URL. 

It doesn't mean that a conforming implementation must implement the listed
eight formats. Instead, it provides a way for stylesheet authors to
indicate what fornt formats they are making available for download. It
avoids having to download a font only to find that its a format that can't
be used.

Likely to be used on various platforms, as it says. Remember that printers
etc are also targets for stylesheets.

--
Chris
Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2000 05:21:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:00 GMT