- From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 23:16:59 +0100
- To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "Erik Dahlström" <ed@opera.com>, "Brad Kemper" <brkemper@comcast.net>, "Paul Nelson" <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>, "Håkon Wium Lie" <howcome@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
2008/5/2 Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>: > On Apr 30, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: >> >> I think it is a mistake to use the term "embedding" in connection with >> web-fonts, because it is misleading about how HTTP works; "linking" is >> a much more accurate term. > > I think this is not entirely clear-cut. Yes, technically, the only way to > truly "embed" a font would be to include an inline <style> block in the HTML > document with a data: URL referencing the font. I agree that would be embedding the font in the page. > On the other hand, there > seems to be some precedent for considering it "embedding" to link to an > on-site EOT font. Such precedents were equally misleading and do not make the current usage valid. > Similarly, the <embed> element in HTML embeds a resource > that is loaded by dereferencing an external URL. I can't understand what "dereferencing an external URL" means, sorry :-( > In general, "embed" is a poor choice of terminology in the context of the > Web, but unfortunately it seems to be standard in the area of font > licensing. It would be better if font licenses were more specific about what > is and is not allowed. I agree. Font licenses can be expected to change often and can be changed very easily once they are published; web standards should not be change often and are hard to change once they are published. -- Regards, Dave
Received on Friday, 2 May 2008 22:17:31 UTC