Re: Merits and deficiencies of EOT Lite

On Jul 29, 2009, at 12:45 AM, John Hudson wrote:

> John Daggett wrote:
>
>> Maybe this is just me but implementing EOT-Lite in non-IE browsers
>> without revving IE effectively handicaps CFF fonts, TTF fonts would
>> be favored for market reasons rather than on technical merits. CFF
>> font vendors would be under market pressure to offer TTF versions of
>> their fonts and switch to using a TTF tool chain.  Clients would be
>> advised, "you should use TTF fonts because IE doesn't support CFF
>> fonts" and I'm guessing that stigma would outlive it's validity.
>
> There is already a TT bias for the web, just as there are the  
> remnants of a once strong PS bias for imagesetters. I think web  
> designers will be advising their clients 'You should use TTF fonts  
> because CFF fonts look like crap and are hard to read at text sizes'  
> long before they get around to saying 'And IE doesn't support CFF  
> fonts'.
>
> Without significant improvement in CFF rasterisation, I think a  
> natural divide will emerge between CFF fonts for headlines and  
> display typography and TTF for text. (...)


Sorry, but I don't agree with your analysis.

I believe the divide will be between "screen text fonts" and "other  
fonts",  or "size specific fonts" and "scalable fonts" – not TTF vs CFF.

"Screen text fonts" are not necessarily TTF fonts.

"Size specific fonts" are independent from font formats.

Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 05:36:17 UTC