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

Re: Webfont compression

From: Laurence Penney <lorp@lorp.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:55:47 +0100
Message-Id: <5B56D1D7-C986-454B-B441-527387279F12@lorp.org>
To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Thanks John, that's useful. (I was going to follow up with similar  
thoughts, but based on supposition - I could not bear to use WEFT on a  
broad range of fonts.)

To foundries wondering about the benefits of MTX compression on their  
own fonts, I suggest they perform tests using WEFT on the fonts they  
guess their customers are going to want on the web, subsetted to Latin  
1 as well as complete, before declaring font-specific compression  
essential. Is there a command-line tool that could be released for  
this purpose (and others)?

One question to which I'd be interesting in hearing answers from  
foundries is this: if you've fielded enquiries for web fonts, have  
those enquiries been mainly for headlines or for text?

- L

On 21 Jul 2009, at 21:12, John Daggett wrote:

> Laurence Penney wrote:
>
>> It seems to me the benefits of Monotype's Microtype Express
>> compression are being oversold.
>
> There was a related thread back at the end of June:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2009AprJun/0002.html
>
> John Daggett
> Mozilla Japan
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2009 20:56:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:03 GMT