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

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

From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:40:54 -0800
To: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6D096C8718FA4241B934489A5E1CE1420118D9B1F91F@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>

> 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.

There are a bunch of embedding bit settings in OpenType (and its predecessor, the MS variant of TrueType), which EOT inherits from that format. The four primary settings are:

- no embedding
- preview and print only
- editable embedding
- installable embedding

(Then there are some other bits which do things orthogonal to the above.)

IF one were going to use embedding bit settings to attempt to distinguish "free fonts" or at least fonts that one could use as naked desktop fonts on web servers, then I would think installable embedding would be the setting one would look for.

BUT, I recall from previous discussions that Microsoft has some fonts set to "installable" but would not be okay with such usage of their fonts, so I don't know that such an approach would be viable.  :(

Regards,

T
Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 22:41:01 GMT

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