W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2008

Re: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts - new compromise proposal

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:08:04 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0811111208i6e8616e5va0957c5628073d2b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>
Cc: "Gustavo Ferreira" <gustavo.ferreira@hipertipo.net>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)

> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> I'm very reluctant to point to any directly, simply because the possible
>> examples are so numerous and it's so easy to reject particular fonts as "not
>> high-quality enough".  Just do a search for them - there's tons of free
>> fonts out there, and many are of nice quality.
> Yes, there are tons of free fonts out there.  But
> in the absence of any concrete examples, I am
> afraid there is little or no evidence that many
> are of professional quality, although to a
> non-critical eye some may well qualify as "nice".

Well, that's another issue making me reluctant to point any out - I know
that I don't have a critical eye in this subject.  Thus it's fairly likely
that I'll point out something which is merely "nice" and have my point
dismissed out-of-hand.  I simply don't know what qualities a font must
possess to qualify as "professional", nor am I willing to put in the time to
crash-course myself and then search for fonts that satisfy this.  I *do*
know that there are many which I am glad to use for my own purposes, and
that I'd love to have available for webdesign purposes.

I also suspect that there qualities that would mark a font as "professional"
which are largely irrelevant to making a font "useful" or "nice".  Thus I
doubt that an exhaustive search for "professional" free fonts, even had I
the skills to make it, would actually be useful here.

Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 20:08:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:31 UTC