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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:41:09 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0811130841kb194157pfa2bbacb5860f5c7@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Philip TAYLOR" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>
Cc: "Thomas Phinney" <tphinney@adobe.com>, "Mikko Rantalainen" <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>
> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> [R]estricting ourselves to *only* free fonts on the web *is* a viable
>> fallback position that would make us web designers happy, and could be
>> implemented without controversy.
>>
>
> No it would not, Tab.  It might make you happy; it might
> make Dave Crossland happy; but it would not make /all/
> web designers happy by any means, so unless you meant by
> "/we/ font designers" the subset of all font designers
> that would be happy to use only free fonts, then I am
> afraid that your assertion is demonstrably incorrect.
>

No, I mean it quite literally.  Our level of happiness would be strictly
increased by allowing only free font linking, because right now we have *no*
font linking.  We would be happy with this.  We would by *happier* with
commercial fonts as well, but *any* font-linking is an improvement that
would make our lives better.

If you have no cake, then a bite of cake makes you happy (if you prefer
relative terms, "happier than before").  A whole slice would be better, but
that bite is still better than no cake at all.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2008 16:41:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:17 GMT