- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:31:30 +0100
- To: "Gérard Talbot" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
- CC: "Public CSS test suite mailing list" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, "taka" <takaoshiyama@gmail.com>
Hello Gérard, Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 12:01:50 AM, you wrote: > Hello all, > This spun from > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-testsuite/2013Feb/0008.html > We never discussed this issue before. > Should we allow and promote TTF font embedding in CSS3 tests ? We should allow font embedding in tests, certainly. Firstly, some test may be testing exactly @font-face. Secondly, some tests are easier to write if it is known that a font is available with particular properties. Thirdly, it can produce more consistent results by providing a font to be used and thus not relying on the availability or not of so-called 'web safe fonts' (which, like so-called web-safe colors, are anything but safe). > Benefits: > - no prerequisite to read > - no download, no installation to do > Drawbacks: > - download and processing can be much longer: eg ipam.ttf is 8MB But subsetting and compression can help there. > - not all user agents support TTF font embedding If they don't support a particular font format (or font downloading at all) then: - for tests where the downloadable font is helpful but not required, they are no worse off and go to the next font in the list, or a fallback - for tests which do depend on downloadable fonts, then they (correctly) fail the test > Any comment is welcomed. I would prefer to see woff rather than raw truetype or opentype fonts. The font data is the same when decompressed, but it is smaller to transmit and can contain useful metadata. WOFF is widely supported. > --------- > I also believe that any/all fonts necessary to tests should be > fetchable, downloadable from > http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/Fonts/ > Gérard -- Best regards, Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 16:31:38 UTC