- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 11:55:52 +0100
- To: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
- CC: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org Group" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On Saturday, February 5, 2011, 1:29:10 AM, Christopher wrote: CS> Hi John. Thanks for working on this. Comments... CS> What's your reasoning for using the word "typography" e.g. "Web CS> typography" and "served typography"? To me, this makes WOFF sound CS> more ambitious than it is; it's really just for delivering a font, CS> right? Along those lines, I'd change the title of part 3 to "What are the benefits of Web fonts?" I like that, though. The point is to deliver typography. That requires two things - first a way to actually have more typographic control (CSS3 Fonts does that, allowing access to OpenType features from CSS) and secondly a way to ensure that fonts which have the required features are available when the page is rendered. WOFF provides that part. Both parts are needed; each part has much less value when the other part is not available. So WOFF is not just 'providing some fonts' but 'providing specific fonts with specific features which the page design uses'. In that wider sense, i feel that putting the emphasis on typography rather than font delivery is the right one. -- Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Saturday, 5 February 2011 10:57:23 UTC