W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2006

Re: Downloadable fonts and image replacement

From: Paul Nelson \(ATC\) <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:22:48 -0700
Message-ID: <49C257E2C13F584790B2E302E021B6F90FA74FD0@winse-msg-01.segroup.winse.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-style@w3.org>
HTML/CSS documents on the web today seem to contain a small usage of web
fonts. Web fonts are defined in CSS in the @font-face style. The process
allows web page designers to link font files to the web page to be
downloaded from a URL in the same way an image is downloaded. Because
the font is temporarily installed on the machine for the page use, it
allows the page to have dynamically rendered text as opposed to a static
bitmap. A limited number of web pages us the .EOT embedded font file
format (which does support subsetting of fonts). 

It would be helpful if people can provide answers and comments to the
following questions to help us understand the requirements for this

1. Is there a felt need on the part of web designers for a mechanism for
fonts to be linked to web pages for better rendering of text instead of
using static bitmaps? 

2. If web fonts were widely supported by browsers, how often would you
create content that uses a font in this way? 

A. frequently
B. occasionally
C. seldom
D. Never

3. If you used @font-face for web pages you have created, how would you
use the font(s)?
E.g. titles, body text, etc.

4. Fonts, especially those supporting multiple languages or East Asian
languages can be quite large (long download time). If subsetting
(providing only the needed characters) is not available would you still
use the technology?

5. What would be your motivating factor for using a web font as opposed
to creating an image or using a font that the user already has on their

6. What are the areas where font support in browsers needs improvement?
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2006 04:22:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:23 UTC