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

Re: WebFonts ready for use

From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 23:16:59 +0100
Message-ID: <2285a9d20805021516t43f758b4t70d127c2ca78945c@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Erik Dahlström" <ed@opera.com>, "Brad Kemper" <brkemper@comcast.net>, "Paul Nelson" <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>, "Håkon Wium Lie" <howcome@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

2008/5/2 Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>:
> On Apr 30, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:
>> I think it is a mistake to use the term "embedding" in connection with
>> web-fonts, because it is misleading about how HTTP works; "linking" is
>> a much more accurate term.
> I think this is not entirely clear-cut. Yes, technically, the only way to
> truly "embed" a font would be to include an inline <style> block in the HTML
> document with a data: URL referencing the font.

I agree that would be embedding the font in the page.

> On the other hand, there
> seems to be some precedent for considering it "embedding" to link to an
> on-site EOT font.

Such precedents were equally misleading and do not make the current usage valid.

> Similarly, the <embed> element in HTML embeds a resource
> that is loaded by dereferencing an external URL.

I can't understand what "dereferencing an external URL" means, sorry :-(

> In general, "embed" is a poor choice of terminology in the context of the
> Web, but unfortunately it seems to be standard in the area of font
> licensing. It would be better if font licenses were more specific about what
> is and is not allowed.

I agree. Font licenses can be expected to change often and can be
changed very easily once they are published; web standards should not
be change often and are hard to change once they are published.

Received on Friday, 2 May 2008 22:17:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:36 UTC