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

RE: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts - new compromise proposal

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:56:39 -0500
Message-ID: <E955AA200CF46842B46F49B0BBB83FF2767AE8@wil-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "Philip TAYLOR" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>

On Monday, November 10, 2008 10:53 AM Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
> Also sprach Philip TAYLOR:
> 
>  > As Vladimir said in his second message "I am not proposing 
> to  > forbid linking to raw TrueType fonts, in some 
> circumstances (e.g.
>  > when raw font has "installable embedding" allowed)."
> 
> I think this view is shared by all; noone has asked for 
> TTF-linking to be banned. However, if obfuscated-TTFs are 
> supported by all browsers and inclear-TTFs are only supported 
> by a subset of browsers, obfusction is likely to be used for 
> all font files. This is not good.
> 

I suspect that the same statement, made using different (and more descriptive) words, would paint a different picture:

"If compressed fonts are supported by all browsers and uncompressed fonts are only supported by a subset of browsers, compression is likely to be used for all font files."

May I ask you - why "this is not good"? Is there a single use case when reducing storage size for fonts, or lowering bandwidth requirements, or making your web page load faster is not a benefit?

Thank you,
Vladimir
Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 16:56:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:16 GMT