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

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

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:10:42 +0000
Message-ID: <4918B162.5050304@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: www-style@w3.org

Dave Singer wrote:

> On the 'serving' side, we are looking for an indication in the font that 
> shows whether it's freely usable or not.  The 'allows embedding' bit has 
> been suggested, and that free fonts would have this set and commercial 
> fonts could have this clear, if they wish.  This isn't obviously the 
> right semantics, so that's question one; is this the right indicator?

I seem to remember that the EOT format has two embedding bits (at least):

- embeddable installable;
- embeddable for print/preview use only.

I think you mean only the former.

David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 22:12:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:41 UTC