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

Re: Not replacing OTF/TTF linking

From: Ricardo Esteves <ricardo@outrasfontes.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 23:45:57 -0300
Message-ID: <f4a479040908071945w182eefa9h811dc7777ad1e192@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
First of all, I have to congratulate everybody for the new solutions
arising here. I really appreciate the WebOTF proposal as a long term
solution & EOT Lite as a solution that works now in IE and FF test
build [1].

I've been testing EOT Lite fonts (generated by Ascender's EOTLiteWrap
software) and it looks fine in the new Firefox test build. I hope that Mozilla
can release this version soon as a Firefox update.


Ben Weiner<ben@readingtype.org.uk> wrote:
> OK, I thought that was an significant issue.
> In fact both EOTL and webOTF proponents are happy that TTF and OTF remain as
> viable formats for linking with @font-face as they are in current W3C
> recommendations, and that the format is selected on its merits (like,
> publisher A will license in format Y or type-designer B thinks the licence
> expression is better in format Z) alone.


I would not say they are "happy" with it, but in my point of view as
an independent type designer:

OTF/TTF font licensing for web use is out of question. No, thanks. ;-)
I think this opinion is shared by most of our colleagues, right? I
mean font vendors, big and small.

Web-specific format under specific licences - Humm, looks fine!

If we have more than one specific web format working in different
browsers, that seems not to be real a problem.

Supose that we have Format 1, that works in Browser A, B and C and
Format 2 that works in Browser B, D and E.
So Foundry/Vendor X can analyze the Pros and Cons involved and decide
to licence its fonts using Format 1, Format 2, or both maybe. For now,
I'm beta-testing everything that is possible.

All the best, gentlemen!

--
Ricardo Esteves
http://www.outrasfontes.com

---

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2009JulSep/1209.html
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 08:15:24 GMT

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