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

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>
> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>  Web designers.
>>
>
> I just don't think you can legitimately make that claim, Tab.
> Existential : yes; universal : no.
> Sorry.
>
> Philip TAYLOR
>

Luckily for me this argument is being made on the internet, not in logic
class.  I have put forth a claim which I feel has strong reasoning behind
it.  Do you have any counterexamples?  I am satisfied with my claim not
being perfectly universal if "there exists" only a tiny minority of people
who would disagree.

To make it absolutely clear, I am claiming that having commercial fonts
linkable is better than having only free fonts linkable, and both of these
are better than having no fonts linkable.  Our current situation is "no
fonts linkable", and so moving to just free fonts would be an improvement.
Moving to commercial fonts would be *better*, of course.

There's another claim buried in this that I think *can* be reasonably argued
against, which is that having just free font linking would produce an
*acceptable* level of happiness.  I consider this to be true; the lack of
font-linking isn't *killing* us currently (though it is holding back a lot
of very interesting designs).

However, even if you dispute this latter claim, we must still keep in mind
that dealing with licensing crap is something which explicitly makes us
*less* happy.  It gets in our way without improving our designs.  Thus, the
decrease in our happiness due to dealing with licensing crap must be
considered together with the increase in our happiness from using commercial
fonts in any discussion.  This sidetrack started out as a reminder to keep
this simple fact in mind.

~TJ