- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:18:37 -0500
- To: "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Hi John, > > > 2) all fonts on the web will "cross the wire" MTX-compressed. I > > believe that making all web fonts MTX compressed would satisfy font > > vendors request #2, and no additional obfuscation of font > data would > > be necessary. > > So you're proposing the obfuscated format be MTX-compressed > fonts? Doesn't this leave out Postscript CFF OpenType fonts, > fonts with an .otf extension, since MTX only compresses fonts > with TrueType-style glyphs, files with .ttf extensions? Many > vendors, including Adobe, primarily ship .otf fonts. This > seems insufficient to cover those fonts. > The table structure of OpenType/CFF fonts is the same as OpenType/TrueType fonts, MTX compressor can do OTF as well. The compressor would leave CFF table "as is" (it's already compressed so there is no need to do a second attempt) but all other tables in a font can be compressed the same way as OT TrueType fonts. > Are you proposing that @font-face rules can't link against > raw TT/OT files? Or that web authors would choose raw TT/OT > or MTX-compressed TT based on the font license? > I believe that using compressed fonts on the web has its own benefits (reduced storage size, low bandwidth consumption, etc.). If any font can be served compressed (and I expect that all authoring and content management tools will be able to do it), and then decompressed by a UA - why not do it? I've never seen bitmap images on the web, GIFs or JPEGs work just fine. Having said this, I am not proposing to forbid linking to raw TrueType fonts, in some circumstances (e.g. when raw font has "installable embedding" allowed) it can be done. Best regards, Vlad > Regards, > > John Daggett > Mozilla Japan > >
Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 14:18:28 UTC