W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Font license vs. conversion between font formats

From: Gustavo Ferreira <gustavo.ferreira@hipertipo.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:21:23 +0200
To: karsten luecke <list@kltf.de>
Message-Id: <20527643-33A5-440F-8157-B91A731C2896@hipertipo.net>
Cc: www-font@w3.org
On Jul 7, 2009, at 4:56 PM, karsten luecke wrote:

>> OTF files can include bitmap glyphs if I haven't totally  
>> misunderstood. Do not distribute the actual font shaping data if  
>> you are not comfortable with anybody copying that data. Instead,  
>> pre-render those shapes as bitmaps and distribute a collection of  
>> those bitmaps as the "web font". Use deformed vector shapes if such  
>> data is always required by the OTF (I don't know). That would be  
>> the low-res font file directly comparable with low-res image.
>
> The only reason for implementing @font-face is the desire to use  
> REAL scalable fonts for web design. For anything less you may stick  
> to images or sIFR or similar hack solutions.
> (The last time I made pixel fonts was as a teenager twenty years  
> ago, on my Atari 1040ST for Signum!3. And no, I have no intentions  
> to travel back in time.)

Hm... I wouldn't dismiss bitmap or size specific type design for the  
web. Quite on the contrary, size specific type designs are the only  
way to control rasterization across different operating systems and  
applications:

   http://www.rogerblack.com/blog/screen_fonts_history

It find it unfortunate that current font architecture doesn't take  
optical sizes into consideration.

Regards,
Gustavo.
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 15:22:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:02 GMT