W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Font embedding problem

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:19:59 +0200
Message-ID: <38F43FBF.644623D4@w3.org>
To: Ash <ash@sch.bme.hu>
CC: www-font@w3.org

Ash wrote:
> > Where in the CSS specification does it say that support for the opentype
> > format is  required?
> >
> Well, actually under section 15.3.5 it says the following (hmmm... yes, it
> also says that it's just _likely_ to be used ;-)
> An initial list of format strings defined by this specification and
> representing formats likely to be used by implementations on various
> platforms is:
>       String  Font Format  Examples of common extensions
>       "truedoc-pfr"  TrueDocT Portable Font Resource  .pfr
>       "embedded-opentype"  Embedded OpenType  .eot
>       "type-1"  PostScriptT Type 1  .pfb, .pfa
>       "truetype"  TrueType  .ttf
>       "opentype"  OpenType, including TrueType Open  .ttf
>       "truetype-gx"  TrueType with GX extensions
>       "speedo"  Speedo
>       "intellifont"  Intellifont

Those (in the absence of MIME types for fonts - we didn't have five years
to devote to fighting for *those* ) are format strings - ways to indicate
what font type is available at a given URL. 

It doesn't mean that a conforming implementation must implement the listed
eight formats. Instead, it provides a way for stylesheet authors to
indicate what fornt formats they are making available for download. It
avoids having to download a font only to find that its a format that can't
be used.

Likely to be used on various platforms, as it says. Remember that printers
etc are also targets for stylesheets.

Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2000 05:21:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:30 UTC