W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2008

Re: [css3-webfonts] Proposal-in-progress for cross site font sharing [was "Downloaded fonts should not..."]

From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:17:44 +0100
Message-ID: <2285a9d20804180317k561bf79bj99522b7da09b4be7@mail.gmail.com>
To: "David Woolley" <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Cc: "www-style mailing list" <www-style@w3.org>

On 18/04/2008, David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote:
>
> most freeware fonts are convertible to EOT, using WEFT.

This is incorrect: Most freeware fonts allow exact duplication only;
format conversion is not allowed.

Please don't confuse freeware with free software (that anyone is free
to convert) which happens all too often wrt fonts.

> I'm curious, though, as to why anyone should run a site for free
> downloading of fonts, or encourage deep linking of fonts on their sites.
> Both seem to involve bandwidth costs without any compensating revenue
> stream.

I'm curious why you think the only motivation in life is direct
monetary compensation?

Why should anyone run an site for free downloading of their valuable
copyrighted text, or encourage deep linking of articles on their
sites? Both seem to involve bandwidth costs without any compensating
revenue stream. Yet the web exists anyway.

> whether less restrictive font access on market
> leaders would result in fonts becoming more available, or whether
> countermeasures to abuse of the mechanism might actually make them less
> available.

I believe that business models will always emerge to supply demand,
and if there is demand for font linking (the term "font embedding" in
this context is pernicious IMO) then the market will supply fonts that
can be linked.

-- 
Regards,
Dave
Received on Friday, 18 April 2008 10:18:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:05 GMT