- From: Ambrose Li <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:42:01 -0400
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>, Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us>, Adam Twardoch <list.adam@twardoch.com>, www-style@w3.org
2009/6/18 Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>: > > Firefox and other browsers will search through every font installed on your > system to find one that supports a character, if necessary. This is not my experience, or at least not my experience with Firefox 3 on the Mac. A lot of characters (e.g., IPA, hanyu pinyin) that used to display correctly in Firefox 2 now come up as blanks. 2009/6/18 Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>: > > Web users who rely on downloadable fonts to render certain languages are likely to have slow and unreliable internet connections - they would definitely benefit from downloadable fonts being as small as possible. This is where efficient compression becomes most valuable, and it does not discriminate - it will compress equally well a font that you've got for free, or the one that you chose to pay for. > As far as quality is concerned - you are free to choose to use a free font of poor quality or pay a few bucks for a font that is high-quality. It's your website and nobody shall deny you this freedom of choice. I don't understand this. If you have to rely on downloadable fonts then you have to download a new font for every different site you visit, and if subsetting is required then you may even have to download a new font for different parts of the same site. If reducing bandwidth is a concern, why would this be even a solution that is worth considering? -- cheers, -ambrose
Received on Friday, 19 June 2009 18:42:39 UTC