- From: João Eiras <joaoe@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 16:55:06 +0200
On Tue, 11 May 2010 16:26:43 +0200, Ashley Sheridan <ash at ashleysheridan.co.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 16:14 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >> On Tue, 11 May 2010 16:08:01 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> >> wrote: >> > On 5/11/10 9:39 AM, Ashley Sheridan wrote: >> >> Is there really much of a need for this though? >> > >> > Good question. What _is_ the use case here, exactly? >> >> E.g. allowing the user to select a font in a text editing or drawing >> application. However, for portability it would probably be better if >> these >> were limited to fonts already on the Web. >> >> > > > I agree, portability dictates that they should stick to the few common > fonts, or we end up with the same situation I've had countless times > where someone sent an MSWord file with all the bullets as some character > from the Wingdings font then wonder why people complain that all their > bullets are letters. > > Embedding the font isn't feasible in this case because you really can't > trust the end-user to observe the legal aspects of the fonts they have > on their system. The designer of a font may not have given user rights > to distribute the font in a document that is publically available like > this. > I've suggested this back in 2007 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2007Jul/0021.html Regarding filtering which fonts, do note that a web page is not the only place where web standards and APIs are used. -- Jo?o Eiras Core Developer, Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 07:55:06 UTC