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

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

From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:58:52 -0500
Message-ID: <7c2a12e20811131858x2a3c4b4csa9cd2d873ca7bfe7@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Thomas Phinney" <tphinney@adobe.com>
Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Dave Singer" <singer@apple.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Thomas Phinney <tphinney@adobe.com> wrote:
> "Forced"? I don't think so.

No individual institution is going to be forced, obviously.  But the
market will provide, if there's demand.  If only bare TTF works online
and enough designers want high-quality fonts, someone is going to
provide high-quality fonts licensed for use as bare TTFs, sooner or
later.  Maybe with a few years' lag, but we're going to have that
anyway as @font-face support and awareness thereof increases
gradually.

This is the primary point, really.  If you like I'll abandon all the
others, because I think this one is sufficient.  (Not that I think the
other ones are wrong, just that they're weaker.)  DRM, even very weak
DRM, has not proven necessary for the massive proliferation of both
free and proprietary images, videos, and text on the web, and it will
not prove necessary for the proliferation of both free and proprietary
fonts either.

> But that doesn't even matter, because users and web *developers* aren't the market for web fonts. It's web *designers*, who are even more able to tell the difference.

I'm assuming that visual decisions like font selection are targeted at
the viewers of the site.  If not, then who *are* they targeted at?
Received on Friday, 14 November 2008 02:59:33 GMT

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