- From: Ricardo Esteves <ricardo@outrasfontes.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 23:45:57 -0300
- To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
First of all, I have to congratulate everybody for the new solutions arising here. I really appreciate the WebOTF proposal as a long term solution & EOT Lite as a solution that works now in IE and FF test build [1]. I've been testing EOT Lite fonts (generated by Ascender's EOTLiteWrap software) and it looks fine in the new Firefox test build. I hope that Mozilla can release this version soon as a Firefox update. Ben Weiner<ben@readingtype.org.uk> wrote: > OK, I thought that was an significant issue. > In fact both EOTL and webOTF proponents are happy that TTF and OTF remain as > viable formats for linking with @font-face as they are in current W3C > recommendations, and that the format is selected on its merits (like, > publisher A will license in format Y or type-designer B thinks the licence > expression is better in format Z) alone. I would not say they are "happy" with it, but in my point of view as an independent type designer: OTF/TTF font licensing for web use is out of question. No, thanks. ;-) I think this opinion is shared by most of our colleagues, right? I mean font vendors, big and small. Web-specific format under specific licences - Humm, looks fine! If we have more than one specific web format working in different browsers, that seems not to be real a problem. Supose that we have Format 1, that works in Browser A, B and C and Format 2 that works in Browser B, D and E. So Foundry/Vendor X can analyze the Pros and Cons involved and decide to licence its fonts using Format 1, Format 2, or both maybe. For now, I'm beta-testing everything that is possible. All the best, gentlemen! -- Ricardo Esteves http://www.outrasfontes.com --- [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2009JulSep/1209.html
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 08:15:24 UTC