Typophile - Safari release version supporting downloadable web fonts... - Comments

Ralf, why not publish here?

spiral — Tue, 5 Aug 2008 03:46:35 -0700

Ralf, why not publish here? Curious.

So, did anyone had a chance

Ralf Herrmann — Tue, 5 Aug 2008 03:08:50 -0700

So, did anyone had a chance to try this? Or is there software out there to do this?

I found a way to do it. If anyone is interested in the results, send me an email. I don’t want to publish it here.

Unfortunately, stripping out

Ralf Herrmann — Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:29:31 -0700

Unfortunately, stripping out the name table also removes the copyright and trademark notices.

Then maybe not the whole table, but certain name fields that might be required by the OS!?

Also, how would the browser reference the font? Aren’t most browsers invisibly installing the font?

I don’t know, but it guess it doesn’t use any information from the name table. The fonts are just a file resource like an image or a video. The name used within the context of the page is specified by the web designer in the CSS declaration. It doesn’t have to have a connection to the actual name in the name table.

Are we saying that I can

gohebrew — Sun, 3 Aug 2008 17:24:47 -0700

Are we saying that I can save an html page in Safari and download the fonts installed in the host’s operating system?

If so, then the font license must either cover or limit the rights of the user who downloads the fonts.

If the user has limited rights, he or she may not install and use them in other documents, without violating his or her limited user rights.

It os likely that as most font foundries include PDF embeddable rights, they will also include limited html user rights.

But I doubt if font foundries will unleash complete user rights to install downloadable fonts in their operating system and usse ther fonts freely in any document. That’s the same as granting unlimited worldwide rights for anyone for a single sale.

Unfortunately, stripping out

Thomas Phinney — Sun, 3 Aug 2008 15:28:35 -0700

Unfortunately, stripping out the name table also removes the copyright and trademark notices.

Also, how would the browser reference the font? Aren’t most browsers invisibly installing the font? (That also requires the name table....)

So the ’name’ table

Ralf Herrmann — Sun, 3 Aug 2008 10:17:27 -0700

So the ’name’ table seems about the only thing that contains non-essential information and might still break the font as far as the OS was concerned.

So, did anyone had a chance to try this? Or is there software out there to do this?

I think it’s very likely that stripping the name table would break the font for the OS but not for the browsers, since they treat the fonts just as file resources.

“(Hosting the fonts

dberlow — Tue, 13 May 2008 04:11:56 -0700

“(Hosting the fonts themselves and giving out CSS referencing.)”
Yessssss....

“What is the basis for this assertion?”
My guess is open and open-ended thinking.

Nice work Ralf. I’d very much like to meet the 4% will pay ’per use.’ ;)

Cheers!

Interesting discussion about

Ralf Herrmann — Fri, 9 May 2008 08:37:54 -0700

Interesting discussion about support for @font-face embedding in Mozilla browsers:
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.tech.layout/browse_thread/thr...

The “bug“ of having no @font-face support is now assigned:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70132
This feature is under development.

:-)

It’s just a theoretical

Ralf Herrmann — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:59:59 -0700

It’s just a theoretical question, based on my ideas how those things could work. I didn’t want to imply to know what other font vendors would do.

I’m not sure I agree with

Thomas Phinney — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:39:44 -0700

I’m not sure I agree with your comment about what font vendors would like to do. (Hosting the fonts themselves and giving out CSS referencing.) What is the basis for this assertion?

Regards,

I did a survey among web

Ralf Herrmann — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:50:18 -0700

I did a survey among web designers to find out what they think about the future of @font-face embedding.
Here are the results: http://opentype.info/blog/2008/04/19/font-face-survey-results/

Pfft I never make anything

HaleyFiege — Mon, 7 Apr 2008 10:05:35 -0700

Pfft I never make anything ugly.

>I’m totally going to have

sii — Mon, 7 Apr 2008 09:58:03 -0700

>I’m totally going to have a job forever.

Fixing ugly sites or making ugly sites?

OH NOES THE INTERNET WILL BE

HaleyFiege — Mon, 7 Apr 2008 09:05:49 -0700

OH NOES THE INTERNET WILL BE UGLEE!

This is so awesome.
I’m totally going to have a job forever.

It’s good to see that

howcome — Mon, 7 Apr 2008 08:47:06 -0700

It’s good to see that Safari is shipping with support for WebFonts. Prince has done so for a while, and Opera has also published a version with WebFonts:

http://www.princexml.com/
http://labs.opera.com/news/2008/03/28/

It’s important to iron out wrinkles in the early phase and I encourage the people here to try it out an repport any problems to the vendors.

Here are some more pages that use WebFonts:

http://www.princexml.com/howcome/webfonts/
http://www.princexml.com/samples/
http://people.opera.com/howcome/2008/ooxml/iso.html
http://people.opera.com/howcome/2008/ooxml/iso.pdf

Not quite in “the wild” — I’m a civilized person :-)

Safari release version supporting downloadable web fonts...

sii — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:32:03 -0700

Let the f’ugly* fun begin.

On Safari...

same page on ’old fashioned’ browser...

Other samples linked here...
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/cssatten

Cheers, Si

*font ugly ;-)