Re: Os/2 fsType embedding bits and web fonts

Adam Twardoch wrote:

> how do your comments relate to web fonts that are, indeed, embedded in
> the HTML document rather than stored outside and linked?

I don't know, which is one of the reasons that I am asking for 
clarification of the meaning of the word 'embedded' as it relates to web 
fonts.

Simon Daniel's comments on the OpenType developer list yesterday* 
suggests that embedding in the context of EOT actually means embedding 
in an EOT, that the EOT is itself somehow the document, listed alongside 
PDF, DOC, PPT and distinguished from 'non-document formats like Flash 
and SilverLight apps'. Which confuses the terminology further.

John Hudson


* The OT list is not publicly archived. Si's comments:

 As far as EOT is concerned, as implemented it
 uses URL-binding to bind the font to the Web
 document. Font EULAs and foundry FAQs tend to
 describe acceptable document font embedding
 scenarios which may include EOT, PDF, DOC, PPT,
 as well as non-document formats like Flash
 and SilverLight apps.

 In my opinion (passed on to Ascender and the
 IE team) EOT-Lite does not conform to the spec's
 definition of document font embedding as the URL
 binding is not part of that spec. So yes embedding
 permissions should be ignored. However there's one
 catch, t2embed.dll will not process "no-embedding"
 EOTs - so don't expect those to work in current
 versions of Windows/IE or any client that uses
 t2embed.dll.

 I don’t see any reason to change the spec. Although
 it would be nice to see the community show more
 interest in a machine readable EULA / permissions
 table. That would certainly help users understand
 what they can and can't do with their fonts, and
 avoid the typical "Read the EULA" comments on
 Typophile and elsewhere.

Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 17:50:57 UTC