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

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

From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:57:59 +0000
Message-ID: <2285a9d20811121457t663b7cdeyb5d8a304fc071f2d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

2008/11/12 Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>:
> One part of the compromise solution is using access control
> instead of the root strings

Thanks for clarifying this.

> the second part is font data compression that can also serve as
> obfuscated font format. I believe we are in agreement that serving
> compressed fonts on the web (and, thus, reducing bandwidth and
> storage requirements) would be equally beneficial when using both
> commercial and free fonts.

(Please distinguish free fonts from proprietary fonts; free fonts are
often developed commercially eg Ascender's Liberation and Droid)

ROC suggested using gzip as the compression+obfuscation, or
developeing an unpatented split-stream font compression method. As a
foundry, would Monotype support either of these compression schemes as
"good enough" obfuscation?

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 22:58:34 UTC

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