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

Re: Merits and deficiencies of EOT Lite

From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:38:26 -0700
Message-ID: <4A6E5692.4010102@tiro.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> While Adobe does use CFF fonts (and has expressed that it has no
> interest in releasing in any other format), I believe most foundries
> distribute in TTF, at least as an option.  (I know that all or nearly
> all of the fonts on my computer are TTF.)  So any issues with CFF
> fonts are at most minor in the short term.

Sorry, I don't think you can make that assumption. The professional 
graphic design market for commercially licensed fonts is heavily 
invested in PostScript, as are the foundries that primarily cater to 
that market.

In the field of custom font development, the format depends on the needs 
and budget of the client (I charge less for CFF font development than 
for TTF because the hinting model is very much simpler and design tools 
favour working with cubic beziers).

John Hudson
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 01:39:09 GMT

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