- From: Brad Kemper <brkemper.comcast@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:25:41 -0800
- To: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Thomas Phinney <tphinney@adobe.com>, Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Nov 13, 2008, at 9:36 AM, Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk> wrote: > > If I have to deal with "licensing crap" in > order to be able to use (say) Zapfino on > the web, then so be it : far far better to > deal with "licensing crap" in order to be > able to use a font crafted by a master The point, that a certain amount of licensing crap may be acceptable in order to get the font you want, is not contended in Tab's assertions that you are replying to. His point, and mine, is that if we have to deal with a a somewhat lesser font in order to get the general typographical design character we are looking for, due to the unavailability of "professional" fonts, then that is better than our previous options of only using preinstalled fonts. Far better to have a font that more closely approaches the look of Zapfino, than to have to resort to Chancery and Vivaldi in it's stead.
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2008 18:26:31 UTC