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

RE: I expect all foundries to start offering web font licenses within 6 months.

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:38:17 +0000
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "rfink@readableweb.com" <rfink@readableweb.com>
CC: 'Dave Crossland' <dave@lab6.com>, 'Thomas Phinney' <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>, 'www-font' <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E020CED8A@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Correction and clarification: Hakon is right, WEFT itself does still require this input. But EOT in general does not require fonts to be
subsetted. While this certainly seems an unnecessary limitation today, I don't think it was in the past and have yet to see any feedback
data demonstrating that this was the main issue.

Note that since the format has been documented, others have been writing tools to convert TTFs to EOT. See
http://edward.oconnor.cx/2009/07/how-to-create-eot-files-without-microsoft-weft for instance.

(Not endorsing this tool, just noting its existence).

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sylvain Galineau
>Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2009 5:27 PM
>To: 'Håkon Wium Lie'; rfink@readableweb.com
>Cc: 'Dave Crossland'; 'Thomas Phinney'; 'www-font'
>Subject: RE: I expect all foundries to start offering web font licenses
>within 6 months.
>
>>Using WEFT, authors had to scan their HTML pages to create EOT files.
>>This was highly inconvenient and proably the major reason why nobody
>>used it. You're saying that the solutions in development will be even
>>more inconvenient?
>
>This is, to my knowledge, untrue. You would do that if you wanted to
>generate an EOT file that was subsetted for
>a static page. There is no need to do this if all you want to do is set
>up a font file for your whole site.
>
>
Received on Monday, 20 July 2009 00:39:01 GMT

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