- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:56:39 -0500
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "Philip TAYLOR" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
On Monday, November 10, 2008 10:53 AM Håkon Wium Lie wrote: > Also sprach Philip TAYLOR: > > > As Vladimir said in his second message "I am not proposing > to > forbid linking to raw TrueType fonts, in some > circumstances (e.g. > > when raw font has "installable embedding" allowed)." > > I think this view is shared by all; noone has asked for > TTF-linking to be banned. However, if obfuscated-TTFs are > supported by all browsers and inclear-TTFs are only supported > by a subset of browsers, obfusction is likely to be used for > all font files. This is not good. > I suspect that the same statement, made using different (and more descriptive) words, would paint a different picture: "If compressed fonts are supported by all browsers and uncompressed fonts are only supported by a subset of browsers, compression is likely to be used for all font files." May I ask you - why "this is not good"? Is there a single use case when reducing storage size for fonts, or lowering bandwidth requirements, or making your web page load faster is not a benefit? Thank you, Vladimir
Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 16:56:52 UTC