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

Re: .webfont Proposal 2

From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:50:40 +0100
Message-ID: <2285a9d20907170450n74019e54l74633f9bfe99f9eb@mail.gmail.com>
To: karsten luecke <list@kltf.de>
Cc: www-font@w3.org
2009/7/17 karsten luecke <list@kltf.de>:
>
> 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).
> ...
> IF root strings have been defined, of course this MUST be respected by the browser.

Such foundries have not been listening when browser developers have
repeatedly and clearly stated that root string respect will never be
implemented, because it is DRM.

However, clearly some foundries have been listening, and got over it
already. Thus...

> As to raw TTF/OTF linking, one thing seems clear ...
> NO RAW TTF/OTF LINKING ALLOWED.
> Foundries seem to agree in this, irrespective of the web font format question.

...this is far from clear. So far I have seen evidence of 4 foundries
who already got over the root string obsession and are going to make
money doing raw TTF linking:

Typotheque.com from http://www.typotheque.com/news/web_font_service_preview
Type-Together.com from http://www.flickr.com/photos/veen/3572372312/
Underware.nl from http://www.flickr.com/photos/veen/3572372312/
MarkSimonson.com from http://www.flickr.com/photos/veen/3572372312/

and of course I heard rumors of a 5th, Ascender, that have been denied
by Bill Davis.

> Or they may not allow "direct" @font-face linking, regardless of the format, and go with
> rather "indirect" models like Typotheque's: http://www.typotheque.com/news/web_font_service_preview

Right; no root strings, raw TTFs, a bit of server-side "indirection." Classy.
Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 11:51:40 GMT

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