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

Re: .webfont Proposal 2

From: karsten luecke <list@kltf.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:33:02 +0200 (MEST)
Message-Id: <200907171133.n6HBX2uY003428@post.webmailer.de>
To: www-font@w3.org
John Daggett wrote:
> Without defining user agent behavior, it's hard to evaluate this
> format.

Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
> Also sprach John Daggett:
>>> - The <allow> element would list domains that are licensed to
>>> use the font. A meta URL, "any", would signify that the font
>>> could be used on all domains.[1]
>> This is a root string proposal in another form and suffers all
>> the same problems
> Agreed. I do not think we will find consensus around a format with
> root strings. 

What is not clear to me is: Are you objecting to the format itself (xml, vs binary as with EOT)? Or do you accept the format and are merely discussing metadata pieces?

As to the request for root string restrictions:

Foundries are not saying that one or more specific root strings MUST be defined in each and every web font (be it .webfont or EOT). Foundries are saying that the web font format must make it POSSIBLE to define root strings (I remind of the "any" in the passage you cited). Which is a difference.
It will be up to each foundry to decide if they make root string restriction part of the licensing conditions or not. Not a once-and-for-all decision by browser makers and web developers. Two examples:
(1) A client like myself licenses for my small site a typeface from Letterror. I provide my two or three domains, they add them to the web font, and I can upload the file to my server. This could be done automatically via their online shop where I would enter my two or three domains.
(2) A larger client needs a license for extensive use. He would contact the foundry in person anyway to talk about the price etc which would include discussing whether root string restriction makes sense or his web develpers apply any of the methods suggested earlier.

In so far, root string restriction is one option that foundries MAY use for a specific audience. For client (1), like myself, it is much easier to just upload a root string restricted font than doing server-side tricks.
It's about allowing for different solutions for different audiences.
As to user agent behavior: IF root strings have been defined, of course this MUST be respected by the browser.

As to raw TTF/OTF linking, one thing seems clear:

Quite a number of foundries appreciate the .webfont format:[2]
http://typegirl.tumblr.com/post/142912558/most-of-the-important-foundries-are-supporting-webfont
Two major foundries have announced special web font licensing models based on the EOT format earlier:
http://ir.monotypeimaging.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=387305
http://www.ascendercorp.com/pr/2009-07-15/
The fact that they tie web font licensing to the EOT format means, as clarified by Ascender's Bill Davis on Typophile:[2]
NO RAW TTF/OTF LINKING ALLOWED.
Foundries seem to agree in this, irrespective of the web font format question.
If it don't look safe enough, it is less likely that foundries offer licenses for the web. Or they may not allow "direct" @font-face linking, regardless of the format, and go with rather "indirect" models like Typotheque's:[3]
http://www.typotheque.com/news/web_font_service_preview

Kind regards,
Karsten



[1]
>From Tal Leming's initial .webfont proposal.

[2]
See http://typophile.com/node/59489#comment-356453
Both links have been provided to this list by Dave Crossland.

[3]
Link via http://typophile.com/node/59489
Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 11:34:56 GMT

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