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: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:45:55 -0800
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6D096C8718FA4241B934489A5E1CE1420118D9D4A40C@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>

Tab wrote:
> Well, that's another issue making me reluctant to point any out - I know
> that I don't have a critical eye in this subject.  Thus it's fairly
> likely that I'll point out something which is merely "nice" and have my
> point dismissed out-of-hand.  I simply don't know what qualities a font
> must possess to qualify as "professional"....

My thoughts on font quality, from about three years ago:
http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/2005/12/quality_in_type.html

I don't think there's any question that it's *possible* to have high quality fonts that are free, and there are a few out there. We could debate whether free software is *conducive* to creating high quality fonts (I'd argue mostly not). But regardless of what might happen with quality free fonts in the future, web designers desperately want to use "retail fonts" as well. And although some new typefaces become popular with designers, the strong majority of the typefaces that are most in demand are 15 to 50 years old, or more. No matter what wonderful free fonts become available, that's not going to change in the next few decades.

Cheers,

T
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 21:46:39 GMT

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