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

Re: A way forward

From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:48:49 +0100
Message-ID: <2285a9d20907271148n6466ae41vd055167a4bed951f@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Cc: www-font@w3.org
2009/7/25 John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>:
> Dave Crossland wrote:
>
>> 2009/7/24 karsten luecke <list@kltf.de>:
>>>
>>> next you will tell me that Typotheque is developing its web font
>>> service because they are so happy with raw TTF/OTF @font-face linking ...
>
>> Stands to reason that they are DEMONSTRABLY happy with raw TTF/OTF
>> @font-face linking, or they wouldn't develop the service that uses it,
>> no?
>
> Sorry, Dave: it doesn't need to 'stand to reason', because some of us
> actually know what Peter's motivation was in developing this hack. It is an
> attempt at a workaround, trying to disguise the nakedness of the font by
> disfiguring its private parts. It is a reaction *against* naked font
> linking, not a vote in its favour.

You have said that you are not happy with raw TTF linking, and implied
you will not advise clients to permit their fonts to be used through a
service like Peter's. That action demonstrates that you are really not
happy with raw TTF linking.

Any foundry that signs up to TypeKit or similar demonstrates that,
although they might prefer something else, raw TTFs are acceptable to
them. They might even SAY that they won't allow raw TTF web fonts, but
(as I said to TP) I fail to see the distinction between raw fonts
served directly or by a service provider in the context of format
discussions such as these.

> Typotheque supports the .webfont proposal.

I didn't mean to suggest they do not support other proposals.
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 18:49:53 GMT

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