W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

RE: Webfont compression

From: Richard Fink <rfink@readableweb.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:27:38 -0400
To: "'Christopher Slye'" <cslye@adobe.com>
Cc: "'www-font'" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002b01ca0b99$5a6ec0b0$0f4c4210$@com>
Thursday, July 23, 2009 Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>

>Adobe is such a vendor. We have no interest in creating TrueType  
>versions of our fonts.

Fair enough.
Maybe I'm all wet on this point.
Let me ask you this, though: IE6,7,8 don't support OTF CFF in an EOT
wrapper. The results can be horrendous.
(I imagine, this is why the Adobe Web Fonts pack is the only part of the
line that ships as TTF - a little nugget I got from Phinney, the
encyclopedia for such things.)
So, this being the case, would you not provide these fonts, as Ascender now
does, in an EOT/TTF format to provide backward compatibility if there was a
demand for it?
Or, would you simply prefer the licensees to handle the conversion? (Which,
BTW, appears to be a brainlessly easy thing to do. With far less a
requirement for technical savvy than say, enabling server-side gzip
compression which many on this list - including John D. - seem to feel poses
little barriers or inconveniences, at all.)
Last question: Do you consider this a "competitive disadvantage"? And if so,
how severe?



-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Slye [mailto:cslye@adobe.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:32 AM
To: rfink@readableweb.com
Cc: www-font
Subject: Re: Webfont compression

On Jul 22, 2009, at 8:33 PM, Richard Fink wrote:

> This assumes that there are vendors "with only PS CFF fonts" who  
> wouldn't happily create a TTF version with the click of a mouse in  
> Fontlab if there was a market for it, free or paid.

Adobe is such a vendor. We have no interest in creating TrueType  
versions of our fonts.

Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 13:28:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:32 UTC