W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2003

[css3-webfonts] @font-face

From: Chris Moschini <cmoschini@myrealbox.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:07:56 -0400
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <1066756076.b883cd20cmoschini@myrealbox.com>

This is in response to the existing thread but moves to discussion of the feature's use in CSS3... .

Ernest Cline [ernestcline@mindspring.com] wrote:
> However, these points I have raised only serve to show
> that @font-face is desirable.   I am unaware of two
> interoperable implementations of @font-face, so unless
> someone can provide them, I have no objections to the
> non-inclusion of @font-face in CSS 2.1

And this I agree with. All the comments made in this thread so far make clear the feature is desirable - I believe this point needed proving - but it still should not be in CSS2.1, and only CSS3. To follow:

David Woolley [david@djwhome.demon.co.uk] wrote:
> IE and Netscape didn't share a common font format.
> (Note the problem with creating a font format is not
> describing the font, but enforcing intellectual
> property rules.  Microsoft's implementation
> locked the font to a particular URL.)

I'm surprised there hasn't been more mention of this so far. The details of this - protecting the author of the *FONT* - are what needs to be added to the standard, somehow, so that at least 2 browsers can implement @font-face consistently *and* with good legal standing. Otherwise this feature will not be properly implemented in CSS3 browsers either.

Some evangelization may also be necessary, but I imagine the mere existence of this thread is enough to get the attention of Mozilla and Opera developers at least, so this is likely sufficient.
-Chris "SoopahMan" Moschini
http://hiveminds.info/
http://soopahman.com/
Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2003 13:08:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:24 GMT