- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:40:09 -0700
- CC: www-font@w3.org
Thomas Lord wrote: > The problem, John, is that TTF/OTF exist as > standards precisely to facilitate the exchange > of font files between applications. These > are "open standards", intended to be implemented > by anyone and everyone who cares to do so. TrueType came into being to break PostScript's stranglehold on page layout and printer drivers. OpenType came into being to extend the capabilities of TrueType to handle complex scripts and, as a byproduct, more sophisticated typographic layout. Fundamentally, the formats exist for the purpose of document creation and display, not 'exchange of font files between applications'. What is exchanged between applications is typically content, in some form from plain text up to fully styled text and document layout; the circumstances in which a TrueType or OpenType font travels with a document is rare. When a font does travel with a document, e.g. embedded in a PDF, it is most often subsetted and lacking many of the capabilities of the document creation font. Further, such embedding is properly respectful of the embedding bit permissions in the font OS/2 table; whereas the browsers supporting naked font linking are apparently unwilling to be responsible for any such permissions. > One is tempted to tease you a little bit by > asking if you are aware that modern browsers > have been turned into music-sharing devices and > that that has resulted in the unauthorized use > of music files... I'm tempted in return to tease you by asking if you understand the difference between music and fonts. JH
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 18:40:49 UTC