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

Re: Merits and deficiencies of EOT Lite

From: Gustavo Ferreira <gustavo.ferreira@hipertipo.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:35:40 +0200
Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2EB08B13-2432-4123-B34D-00DF2BFB9836@hipertipo.net>
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
On Jul 29, 2009, at 12:45 AM, John Hudson wrote:

> John Daggett wrote:
>
>> Maybe this is just me but implementing EOT-Lite in non-IE browsers
>> without revving IE effectively handicaps CFF fonts, TTF fonts would
>> be favored for market reasons rather than on technical merits. CFF
>> font vendors would be under market pressure to offer TTF versions of
>> their fonts and switch to using a TTF tool chain.  Clients would be
>> advised, "you should use TTF fonts because IE doesn't support CFF
>> fonts" and I'm guessing that stigma would outlive it's validity.
>
> There is already a TT bias for the web, just as there are the  
> remnants of a once strong PS bias for imagesetters. I think web  
> designers will be advising their clients 'You should use TTF fonts  
> because CFF fonts look like crap and are hard to read at text sizes'  
> long before they get around to saying 'And IE doesn't support CFF  
> fonts'.
>
> Without significant improvement in CFF rasterisation, I think a  
> natural divide will emerge between CFF fonts for headlines and  
> display typography and TTF for text. (...)


Sorry, but I don't agree with your analysis.

I believe the divide will be between "screen text fonts" and "other  
fonts",  or "size specific fonts" and "scalable fonts"  not TTF vs CFF.

"Screen text fonts" are not necessarily TTF fonts.

"Size specific fonts" are independent from font formats.
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 05:36:17 GMT

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