W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2002

Re[2]: Browser support for downloadable fonts in CSS

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 21:17:54 +0100
Message-ID: <19911988829.20020206211754@w3.org>
To: "Tantek Celik" <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
CC: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wednesday, February 06, 2002, 8:58:57 PM, Tantek wrote:

TC> From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
TC> Subject: Re: Browser support for downloadable fonts in CSS
TC> Date: Wed, Feb 6, 2002, 11:38 AM

>> On Friday, February 01, 2002, 12:43:16 AM, Kynn wrote:
>>
>> KB> Anyone got a good reference on which browsers support downloadable
>> KB> fonts as per the CSS level 2 specification?
TC>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
TC> I take this to mean "per the CSS level 2 specification", not, "per
TC> portions/fractions of the CSS level 2 specification".

I take this to mean "support downloadable fonts per the downloadable
font part of the downloadable font specification". But feel free to
make more convoluted interpretations if it suits your rhetoric better.

>> The term for such support is WebFonts. The following I am aware of,
>> additions welcomed:

>> <lengthy list of (partial) implementations>

Well, who pissed in your cornflakes this morning? Or is the answer to
"Microsoft IE for Mac" a "not yet"?

TC> What is not known is whether any of these implementations actually support
TC> WebFonts per the entire WebFonts specification in CSS2.  Indeed, it is also
TC> not known if any of these implementations are actually interoperable.

Well, gee, one would need a test suite for thet, wouldn't one? Plus an
implementation report? And then, getting out of CR on the basis of
proven interoperability?

However, since the actual question, if you read it, refers to
downloading and not to matching on panose numbers or to font
synthesis, I kept my reponse to what was actually asked.

TC> Perhaps if there was a WebFonts test suite we could check some of these
TC> claims of implementation to see how much is actually implemented (hopefully
TC> interoperably at that), and how much is only theory in a specification.

http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/BE-ImpStatus-20011026.html

I see three "yes" results for fonts-fontElement-BE-01.

Feel free to point out why these are not interoperable, preferably
restraining yourself to facts rather than attempts at FUD. There are
handy screen shots of the interoperable results of rendering, if you
don't have any SVG implementations handy.

Or, more positively, feel free to make similar tests for other XML
languages such as XHTML, in case there are ever any XHTML
implementations. I agree that at present, there is only demonstrated
interoperability with CSS WebFonts when used on SVG files. But its
always possible the legacy browsers will catch up, one day.

-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 15:17:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:13 GMT