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

Re: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:40:39 +0100
Message-ID: <48F84177.4000609@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> 
> This is not a fact. It is purely speculation. The poor quality of 
> Microsoft's WEFT tool and the lack of interoperability with other 
> browsers are just as likely to have been major factors.

I would suggest that the two main reasons were:

1) image replacement is much more flexible in terms of distorting 
existing fonts and adding colours (and many interpretations of font 
copyright say that bitmaps of fonts are exempt from the font copyright);

2) embedding a font is a technical, non-WYSIWYG process.

I think one also sees a trend away from embedding in PDF, e.g. people 
using MSWord Word Art include it without thinking that it is really an 
image.



-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Friday, 17 October 2008 07:41:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:15 GMT