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 10:58:15 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0811130858x76d77f2tb485494f87d2742b@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 10:47 AM, Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>
> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>  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.
>>
>
> That still begs the question "who is 'we'" ?
> Philip TAYLOR
>

Web designers.

Again, our current situation is no fonts at all.  Unless you can come up
with some designers who are actually happier with no font-linking than they
would be with only-free-font-linking, I think I'm correct in my usage of the
pronoun.  Again (again), I would certainly be *more* happy if commercial
fonts were available as well and reasonably easy to use.  But some fonts are
better than no fonts, and I don't think it's possible to make a reasonable
argument to the contrary.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2008 16:58:52 GMT

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