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

Hi Bert,

> In practice, people are used to seeing a copyright statement at the 
> start of books and another underneath images, but they never see one 
> for fonts. When they use a word processor to create a document, they 
> apply a two-column layout, the color green and the Palatino font all 
> with the click of a button and they don't realize that the rules 
> for "green" and "Palatino" are somewhat different.

That's a great paragraph, but perhaps things could go the other way? 
Instead of free fonts, we could have licensed colors, so that users can 
select PANTONE(TM) 3385C to go with their Linotype Palatino(R).

Perhaps color descriptions could also include some form of root strings, 
so that they cannot be used on other sites without proper licensing?

Some suggested syntax:

h1 {
   color: special('PANTONE 3385C', 'www.example.com')
}

On second thoughts, a separate rule similar to @font-face would make 
more sense, allowing the color to be used conveniently and allowing 
extra metadata to be added easily:

@color {
     color-name: MildGreen;
     color-sites: 'www.example.com' 'portal.example.com' ...
     color-key: '4289ae89f89c8d1b';
     color-src: url('http://pantone.com/colors/3385C')
}

The color-key property is a hash of the color-src and color-sites that 
has been generated by the color provider, allowing the browser to verify 
that the color is properly licensed for use on the site.

I think this would allow for significant innovation in the color spaces 
available on the web, and encourage commercial color providers to enter 
the market, enriching the options available to web authors.

Best regards,

Michael

PS. Not 100% serious :)

-- 
Print XML with Prince!
http://www.princexml.com

Received on Thursday, 13 November 2008 03:23:49 UTC