Bill,

How will your EOT Lite handle OT fonts with PS outlines?

James - good question! I assume "Yes" is the answer you are hoping for?

The current public EOT specification is at http://www.w3.org/Submission/EOT/. There is nothing in there to prohibit CFF being stored in the FontData section.

The benefits are obvious, EOT Lite fonts will work with IE4 and above, can be easily supported in other browsers, and with their faster upgrade rates, we could see 90% of installed browsers supporting the format within a year.

Does that mean that the non-Microsoft web browser programmers are willing to implement EOT Lite regardless of their suspicions about Microsoft standards, DRM, etc?

we could see 90% of installed browsers supporting the format within a year.

Have the other browser makers already been heard about that? I mean, who (beyond Microsoft, of couse) is interested in implementing a support for this format in the next browser versions? Once again, I think it will be crucial for the success or fail of any format.

We can't speak for all browser programmers, but we believe most developers would be willing to implement a webfonts solution that:

1) provides web designers and developers access to the fonts they are clamoring for

2) does so without having to wait years for it to be supported in all browsers

3) does so in a format that major commercial font developers support

4) does so without JavaScript, Flash or other hacks

We believe EOT Lite is that solution.

The benefits are obvious, EOT Lite fonts will work with IE4 and above, can be easily supported in other browsers, and with their faster upgrade rates, we could see 90% of installed browsers supporting the format within a year. EOT Lite would still have the benefits of OTW: a font file that is differentiated from desktop fonts and containing license information.

While I applaud & dream of that kind of adoption rate. How open is the EOT format? Can Microsoft start making selfish changes that will hurt other adopters down the line, one adoption has reached critical mass? I feel that is really the question needing answered. I really don't feel Mozilla/Opera/Google will jump onto a standard Microsoft controls given the track record of the company in the past (regarding to standards).

I know there will definitely be an OS vs. MS challenge there. But fingers crossed...

Oh. Ummm... OK. Here's hoping that Mozilla and/or Opera are willing to add EOT lite support...

The t2embed library used to support embedded font usage on Windows does not support CFF fonts, so no version of IE will load them.

What exactly is the "licensing information" that you describe? How do you expect it to be used? Why do you need a new format for licensing information when the license record in the name table already exists?

I'm a little foggy on how previous versions of IE will, with seeming magic, ignore some of the restrictions built into EOT. If this is the case, and it has intrinsic advantages, why doesn't IE support this new lite format already?
And a lack of support for CFF fonts - as John Daggett points out - is so backwards-looking that I have trouble NOT seeing it as a deal-breaker.
I echo his concerns and questions.
I'm not saying this is a fudge-job interim solution, but it kind of looks that way at first glance.
It also ignores compression, even as an optional feature.

I think there is patience (albeit limited) among designers and developers as long as it means a dependable, interoperable, long-term solution that isn't going to leave us with the need for yet another format five years down the road.
IMHO.

I'd like to hear more before giving any firm feedback.

lack of support for CFF fonts

The EOT *format* supports CFF OT just fine. But neither WEFT nor IE have yet done so. Unfortunately, nothing anyone does is going to magically get CFF support into old versions of IE. Standardizing on some stripped down EOT gives an option for folks who want to get web fonts working today, and certainly doesn't preclude supporting OT CFF as well.

Cheers,

T

Wouldnt CFF fonts look like garbage on the web, since they lack TT hinting? As web fonts take off, is it worth it to try and convince designers to make TTF-flavored OT, with delta hints?

Wouldnt CFF fonts look like garbage on the web, since they lack TT hinting?

That will depend on the font and operating system. Lighter weights of sans fonts work pretty well on Mac OS, but bold weights render poorly at small sizes. Hinting will be the next big stumbling block for web fonts: designers are going to go up in arms when they realize how bad the fonts look and blame font designers, but they won’t want to pay for well-hinted screen fonts because so few exist that there’s really no baseline for what they should cost. On the upside, I think many experienced web designers learned to think about legibility issues when nobody could read all those eight-pixel bitmap fonts that were hot in Flash sites a few years back, so hopefully we won’t have to live through two years of godawful unhinted serif faces.

No baseline? Foundries large (and a few small ones, too) have been licensing well-hinted fonts to corporate clients for office use for like a decade, if not longer. And if you want to know how cheap a well-hinted font license can be, look no further than that recent Spiekermann...

Foundries large (and a few small ones, too) have been licensing well-hinted fonts to corporate clients for office use for like a decade, if not longer.

I was referring to retail fonts. Corporate licensing pricing is not especially applicable to the many small jobs that have a total budget much smaller than the cost of a well-hinted corporate font license.

Look no further than that recent Spiekermann...

But how many type designers sell enough fonts to recoup the costs of TrueType hinting a four-weight family for $80?

It isn't just corporate sales. Monotype tt fonts with esq hinting and Linotype tt fonts with xsf hinting are just slightly more expensive than their non-hinted versions iirc. I'm sure that these aren't the only instances.

As for the pricing sinking issue and distributors' prices... Well, not every font that could be used on the web should be used on the web. Especially for smaller text.

Wouldnt CFF fonts look like garbage on the web, since they lack TT hinting?

On Mac OS using the system rasterizer, hinting is irrelevant or nearly so.

ClearType is capable of working very nicely with CFF OpenType, as demonstrated by the WPF rasterizer for CFF. But this is hardly mainstream, I guess.

As web fonts take off, is it worth it to try and convince designers to make TTF-flavored OT, with delta hints?

Delta hints are not of much interest for web fonts any more, because most are ignored by ClearType, and all are irgnored by the Mac OS rasterizer. At least, that's my impression. (With the possible exception in ClearType of deltas on Y-direction CVTs rather than directly on points, which could increase x-height at some key sizes or the like.)

I could be mistaken about the degree of uselessness of delta hints, and am open to being corrected.

Note also that regular GDI ClearType is turned on in IE 6 and higher, even when not on at the OS level.

Regards,

T

Will browsers support some OpenType features too?

@ray: Yes, there is on going current discussion of how to support features in CSS3 :-)

>I could be mistaken about the degree of uselessness of delta hints, and am open to being corrected.

Both Windows and Mac ignore x hints but not y. Delta instructions are ignored on the Mac. Windows only ignores them if they are 'out of line.' But since deltas can be used in the places other than glyph instructions and in ways other than to disturb the priceless rendering of ClearType, they are neither totally useless nor completely ignored.

Both of these OS have fallen qualitatively behind places like Pre and soon, some other vendors who use FreeType.

>Wouldnt CFF fonts look like garbage on the web, since they lack TT hinting?
Most will. But the true garbage time comes when people start using fonts that are not as robust as the few they have now, i.e. hints wouldn't even help.

Cheers!

@dberlow: Both of these OS have fallen qualitatively behind places like Pre and soon, some other vendors who use FreeType. - er, are you saying that FreeType is the best quality renderer?

I think Dave is saying that FreeType is going to soon outpace the OS vendors. Certainly it was well behind the last time I saw it, but these things change.

Cheers,

T

Both of these OS have fallen qualitatively behind places like Pre and soon, some other vendors who use FreeType.

Can we expect FreeType to exceed the quality of the OS Rendering on all LCD screens in the near future or is the rendering quality due to customizing FreeType to work well with the specific devices?

@thomas
>"The EOT *format* supports CFF OT just fine. But neither WEFT nor IE have yet done so. Unfortunately, nothing anyone does is going to magically get CFF support into old versions of IE. Standardizing on some stripped down EOT gives an option for folks who want to get web fonts working today, and certainly doesn’t preclude supporting OT CFF as well."

I'm still not getting it. At least not easily. And if I'm not, then I'm assuming a similar reaction from others like me who understand browsers, standards, but are not overly technical with regards to the subtleties and differences betweeen font formats.
What I'm hearing is: "EOT Lite will give us backward compatibility but yet in some ways it won't."
Huh?

@Billdavis or anybody: Can you clear up this confusion?

@tphinney: I thought he might be saying that FreeType had ALREADY outpaced them, which would be news to me! :) I think James has the right idea though; since possible to customize FreeType to work well with specific devices, so its likely that "freetype is highest quality" will become a kind of urban legend...

With the release of Firefox 3.5, don't we effectively already have font linking/embedding, since every major browser now has some kind of support? - All it requires is a couple of lines of code to determine whether the browser is IE or other: if so use EOT font, otherwise use TTF/OTF. [Either do this yourself or get a service like TypeKit to do it for you].

Haven't we lost the plot? Shouldn't we be talking about the licensing model not the format? In the long run, is any web-only font format going to be any more effective at "protecting" fonts than various digital audio formats have been at "protecting" music? If there was going to be a special font format as standard for the web, shouldn't that have been sorted out *years* ago?

Unlicensed use of fonts on the internet should be *far* easier to police than unlicensed use of fonts in printed publications as you can devise a bot to search for them. Isn't it going to be much easier to search for and find sites using your fonts (legally or illegally) where the original un-obfuscated, un-subsetted fonts are being used?

No reputable commercial site is going to use unlicensed fonts - and those are the people who will actually pay for fonts. Won't the increased licensing fees for use of fonts on these sites far outweigh decreased sales (if any) from increased piracy?

- C

cflynn: "Won’t the increased licensing fees for use of fonts on these sites far outweigh decreased sales (if any) from increased piracy?" I don't think so, no, and it seems almost no one does.

Richard Fink -- I’m still not getting it.

EOT, in the most simple case, is nothing but a wrapper around a TTF/OTF, more exactly a few header data which are followed by the actual TTF/OTF font data. (Font data can be compressed, or can be modestly obfuscated, but do not need to. Actually it would be easier especially for smaller foundries to do without these two options and just add the header.)
That certain browsers only support one flavor but not the other is hard to understand. If an issue, it is a browser issue rather than a font format issue. As simple as that.

Christopher Fynn -- Haven’t we lost the plot?

Yes.
Since @font-face is not heavily used yet (is it used at all), it is not too late to agree on supporting only EOT rather than also TTF/OTF. It is be a clean solution, and with information given in the EOT header, services like TypeKit were mostly superfluous.
Discussions -- including on www-style and www-font list -- do not make any sense to me. The funny thing is that my own position has changed thanks to said discussions. Before, I was all for plain TTF/OTF. But web guys' "for free" and "-anti" ideology and fabricated arguments showed me how they tick.
The point is that EOT's header info expressly states who may use the font (by URL info as well as by EOT "format" itself which tells a OS "that's not for you") -- which additional information prevents abuse in the first place. No need for policing which I am not particularly fond of.

In so far, I welcome the new proposal.

Karsten Luecke — Since @font-face is not heavily used yet (is it used at all), it is not too late to agree on supporting only EOT rather than also TTF/OTF.

Are Safari, Opera, Mozilla going to remove support for TTF/OTF? — hardly seems likely.

Mozilla says patented technology used in EOT is "a show stopper". Are the patent holders concerned going to free these patents — or Mozilla and other like minded parties going to change their minds? — hardly seems likely.

Eventually won't someone with a substantial library of fonts decide to license their fonts for web use in both TTF & EOT formats? There are one or two companies with large clone libraries I can think of that might see this as worth their while - and, in the short term at least, the first ones to jump could make substantial sales.

Either that, or a service like TypeKit might buy up or license such a font library.

- C

me — “Won’t the increased licensing fees for use of fonts on these sites far outweigh decreased sales (if any) from increased piracy?”

abattis — "I don’t think so, no, and it seems almost no one does."

Since the advent of the alt.fonts.binary group on Usenet, and now with peer-to-peer file sharing, unlicensed copies of almost every digital font have been easy enough for people to obtain without paying for them. On the internet at least, substantial font piracy may be older than music piracy. It's hard to imagine how TTF / OTF embedding could make the situation substantially any worse.

People who now pay for commercial fonts will continue to pay for them. Those who don't want to pay for commercial fonts, and think they can get away using them without paying, will continue to do so - though using an unlicensed font on a web site would be pretty stupid since it is so likely you'll get found out. A few people will link/embed only FOSS fonts - and that number may grow if commercial vendors continue not to license fonts for web use, or if licensing fees are felt to be too high.

- C

>Since @font-face is not heavily used yet (is it used at all), it is not too late to agree on supporting only EOT rather than also TTF/OTF

Do you actually think there is any way the OT format will be REMOVED by the W3C recommendation? I laugh at this ridiculous notion.

Laudable thoughts on this topic can only start with an addition to the OT format.

>since possible to customize FreeType to work well with specific devices, so its likely that “freetype is highest quality” will become a kind of urban legend...

Reword...since it is possible to customize FreeType to work well with specific fonts... and I don't live in a city.

Cheers!

C.F. -- Mozilla says patented technology used in EOT is "a show stopper".

According Mr Levantovsky this is a non-argument, see his post of 25.6.2009 to the www-style list.

C.F. -- Are Safari, Opera, Mozilla going to remove support for TTF/OTF? — hardly seems likely.
D.B. -- Do you actually think there is any way the OT format will be REMOVED by the W3C recommendation? I laugh at this ridiculous notion.

Admitted.

D.B. -- Laudable thoughts on this topic can only start with an addition to the OT format.

If normal TT/OT fonts are supported too, then additional tables/data or even additional formats/wrappers are nothing but small print that nobody reads.

@Christopher Fynn — Shouldn’t we be talking about the licensing model not the format?

I want to see a web font format that does not allow anyone with a browser to easily download a free copy of one of my fonts used in a web site.
Although I may be able to track unauthorized use online, what particularly concerns me is offline usage, which is presently the bulk of my market.

I will aim to publish each of my typefaces in two formats: EOT (or OTW, .wtf, or whatever) and .otf, with different price points, licenses, and features--each addressing its own tranche.

"I want to see a web font format that does not allow anyone with a browser to easily download a free copy of one of my fonts used in a web site."

Well, I don't think we're going to be able to reinvent the web.

Alas, that's a basic functionality of the web. We download code, images, text, and then it's stored on our machine and presented to us in the browser.

I concede that there are ways to make files harder to re-use, but I'm still not understanding why we think this is a concern, as the font files are already easily downloadable by those that want in completely unencumbered original formats.

Anyone that would be willing to spend the time fishing files out of their browser's cache would surely be the type of person that already knows how to find the original font files easily anyways, no?

Darrel, this was addressed by Ray Larabie in Bill's previous thread.

Nick, have a link?

I know there is concern about a lack of attribution in that when using @font-face there is no indication of copyright or notice of an EULA with the font being used. I understand that argument, though I'm not sure if that's the one you are referring to.

http://www.typophile.com/node/58922

If I understand what Ray is saying, to paraphrase, being able to grab a font via @font-face may be 'too easy' in that people won't realize it's illegal to use the font elsewhere.

I'm not convinced, though, that people that would think it's 'so easy it must be legal' would have been paying customers of that typeface otherwise.

I guess it boils down to the old issue of how many paying customers would one gain vs. how many would one lose.

I don't know if this is helpful as bricks/mortar vs virtual and often not fair analogies: Let's say you two tool stores.

Tool store A has only one employee, an inattentive cashier with poor eyesight. The tools have price tags on them.

Tool store B doesn't use price tags and they leave all the tools out on the sidewalk.

It's fairly easy to steal from store A but only certain kinds of people would do that. They would use the tools with the full knowledge that they are stolen tools. In this example, the

It's just as easy to pick up tools from the sidewalk in front of Store B. Some people would assume that they're supposed to be free. There's no price tag and they're just sitting there. They might assume that it's okay to use those tools since they're not stolen . . . they were sort of found. Some people would assume the unmarked sidewalk tools belong to a store, some wouldn't.

The tools are fonts. The price tag is the EULA. I'm not saying piracy and stealing are the same thing; they're not. If somebody deliberaately took an drill from Store A without paying, we'd call them a shoplifter. If someone spotted a drill on the sidewalk with no price tag and picked it up we wouldn't call them a shoplifter.

So it's not about how many paying customers are lost to piracy. That's not the issue. Piracy can't be stopped. If people want to pirate fonts, they can pirate fonts. If you bring that into it, you're clouding the real issue which is: the difference between Store A and Store B. It's not just about how easy it is to get at the fonts. It's about the difference between having to defeat security using a font ripper browser plugin or just straight downloading from a URL.

The EULA, to me is very important. Whatever embedding solutions people come up with, that's the most important factor to me. At the very least, I deserve to be protected by a liability disclaimer, no?

@typodermic

You've got it about right.
Now, font-makers as a group need to swiftly move towards a consensus and begin to speak - at least publicly - with one voice on this issue.
Those who don't quite understand the technical barriers to unlicensed use need to defer to trusted colleagues who do.
Just as in a labor dispute - say, the Writers Guild of America strike a few years ago that stopped TV and Film production - fragmentation is enemy number one.

(Just my humble opinion. But an informed one.)

Richard Fink

The Writers Guild is a union right? International screenwriters, like those who work in Britain, France, or Germany, aren't covered, I think. TV didn't stop over here in Europe when the Americans went on strike…

My point is that typeface designers, font developers, and font distributors are a diverse bunch, internationally scattered. Speaking for all of them would be difficult. There isn't a union, in the US or otherwise. The ATypI, which you might be able to call an international trade group, probably cannot speak authoritatively for all of the people who work with type worldwide, even if they would all be members (which is not the case, I suspect).

@dan_reynolds
Everything you say is true.
And I'm not saying that everyone should unquestioningly start marching in lockstep.
But there is a common interest among all font-makers everywhere. And, if it is at all possible, from a "political" and "public relations" standpoint, a united front would be highly beneficial.
For one reason only: I think it will help bring a speedier resolution of the "problem" of web fonts to the satisfaction of most stakeholders.

Like I said, just my opinion, but it is based on a lot of hours looking at this issue unfold on a daily basis.

There is a symposium at TypeCon2009 on Sunday the 19th about web fonts. Perhaps some light will be shed there.

"the difference between Store A and Store B"

B&M analogies aren't always ideal, but yours is pretty good. However, if I may, I think to fully equate the analogy to web fonts, we need a C option:

store A) commercial tools, but easy to shoplift if one desires. It's also very easy to legitimately purchase quickly and efficiently for those that like to buy their products legitimately.

store B) commercial tools, but difficult to shoplift if one desires. It's also a bit of a pain to purchase products as there are long lines, crowded parking, and that really annoying person that insists that they look in your card and put a smiley face on the receipt before you can leave since they don't trust any of their customers.

free bin C) commercial tools that have been left in boxes out behind the abandoned warehouse for anyone to take that wants them.

I think those into getting software for free for the sake of getting it for free are fully aware of location C and use that most of the time (.ru sites, any number of newsgroups or bittorrent trackers, private file sharing groups, sendspace/yousendit/megadownload/etc). Some of these folks, if they can't find the tool they want at option C will go into store A and sneak it out in their coat.

Which leaves the question: What if Store A didn't exist? What would that group of people do if option C didn't have what they want? I see a few scenarios:

1) They'd decide that it's not worth the effort to steal from store B and do nothing.

2) They'd be determined to get it anyways and do what it takes to lift it from store B.

3) They'd decide to pay money legitimately at store B.

What percentage of people that rarely if ever pay for fonts would fit into each of those 3 groups? I don't know. Does getting rid of option A turn off some legitimate purchasers who no longer will bother as they don't want to deal with the hassle of store B? I don't know that either.

"It’s about the difference between having to defeat security using a font ripper browser plugin or just straight downloading from a URL."

IMHO, I don't see a real difference there. In fact, I imagine the 'font ripper' plugin would ultimately be easier to use ('STEAL ANY FONTS ON THIS SITE' one click vs. VIEW SOURCE -> Find CSS URL -> View CSS -> find @font-face path -> Download font).

Aside from all of that, I do agree that a consensus needs to be formed sooner than later. Something that the type community can present to the W3C as their own proposal as a group.

I'm certainly looking forward to sitting in the audience and listening to the web fonts symposium at TypeCon. Whether or not a consensus is reached, I'm sure that it will be an eye-opening event.

Irrespective of the TTF/OTF vs EOT question:
I am delighted that Mozilla 3.5 supports 'liga' and 'kern' features pretty well, even if referencing multiple lookups and even if contextual. Very good. (Safari seems to have problems here.)

Karsten

@k.l. You may be interested in these tests (and results for various browsers):
W3C font linking tests for International typography

For some languages, downloadable fonts are currently the only way to make readable web pages.

Thanks, I didn't know this page!

I’m certainly looking forward to sitting in the audience and listening to the web fonts symposium at TypeCon. Whether or not a consensus is reached, I’m sure that it will be an eye-opening event.

9 panelist in one hour. I think one can pretty much guarantee no consensus will be reached.

If I go, it will be ten panelists in one hour, but I don't think consensus is the goal of the panel session. If some red flags are raised and people understand the issues, that's a good start.

One person's red flag, is another's blue flag. 10 or 20 panelists in a n hour or five is not going to change the fact that there will be dozens of solutions eventually offered, and the marketplace will pick the winner. Go to the bar and have a drink instead.

Nothing was ever resolved in public.

James, the W3C is currently considering formalising a standard for a web font format -- or multiple formats -- that will be supported by all browsers. Whatever other solutions are eventually offered by online typesetting services, plug-ins, etc., and which will fare better or worse in the market, we're currently looking at a web font standard à la online graphics or audio formats. This isn't something to be ignored. A couple of days ago, FireFox 3.5 became the latest browser to unilaterally support linking of raw TTF and OTF font files, with nothing to prevent your fonts from being made downloadable from servers all over the net except your license agreement and your own diligence.

Again, I'm not expecting anything to be resolved at TypeCon, but I am looking on it as an opportunity to discuss counter proposals for stronger formats, sort out some technical issues, etc. The panel is a chance to present some facts, air some opinions, and establish basic positions. I think the bar and drinks are going to be crucial to what comes next.

Nothing was ever resolved in public.

It is in the nature of standards that they have to be resolved in public. It is illegal not to resolve them in public.

So yes, I am going to TypeCon.

Given the hot-button nature of this issue, I have recently stepped forward to moderate the TypeCon web fonts panel -- which may well prove to be a fool's errand.

I have yet to talk through the session with the panel members, but my intention will be to keep the didactic material to a minimum and to facilitate a focused, substantive exchange.

This panel is being offered as a discussion, not a consensus or a resolution.

Ten people is indeed a large group to manage (and our audio tech, JP, is going to love managing this also -- Ha!). I hope we can keep expectations realistic.

I think John stated the objective quite well: "a chance to present some facts, air some opinions, and establish basic positions."

-- Kent.

Perhaps you could take it a bit further Kent, and strike a committee to represent type designers' interests.

I think you should extend the panel to an hour and a half, if at all possible. I see it's the first thing Sat. morning, so you could start it at 8:30 instead of 9:00. Since this is the current hottest topic, people will be there.

There was a TypeCon panel--I think it was in Boston--about trends in type for print publications, and it was a great panel but frustratingly short. An hour with ten people is just too short.

Kent, you may or may not want to wade through the W3C font list archive before attempting to moderate this panel. :)

It is in the nature of standards that they have to be resolved in public. It is illegal not to resolve them in public.

And standard making organizations would never, ever do anything that wasn't perfectly legal would they!

I love it when you joke around!

I'm afraid the schedule is not my purview, Bill.

And the session is first thing Sunday morning, not Saturday. I think trying to start early would be self-defeating. As much interest as there is in the topic, I don't foresee many people curtailing their Saturday night activities just to attend anything much before 9:00. Perhaps I'm wrong.

So, we should probably just start with the understanding that it will be frustratingly short and not cover everything. I suppose that's the nature of the beast.

From there, we'll have to do the best we can -- start on time, stay on point, and let the conversation spill into the hallways after.

John, I can barely keep up with the various threads here. ;-)

Well as there's a half hour between sessions, another option would be to call out when an hour is up, then continue informally for another 20-30 minutes for those who want.

As much interest as there is in the topic, I don’t foresee many people curtailing their Saturday night activities just to attend anything much before 9:00.

I bet this whole thing could get worked out if you just locked them in Shu’s room overnight.

Hmm. Bill, I'm not sure what schedule you're looking at, but the next session on Sunday morning is slated for 10:00, right on the heels of the panel.

Kent, you're right, in my haste I must have misread it.

Kent, these things always take about 50 minutes to get really rolling. Maybe you can trim that to 30. :)

The panel -- and more importantly, the audience -- will benefit from a firm grip from the moderator, so I wish you well there.

>...I’m not sure what schedule you’re looking at,

I'm wondering, looking at typecon.com, as an exhausted interface user, whether the schedule is up and I just can't find the button that says "show me the damn schedule", or whether it's not up and we're looking at the skeleton of a user interface waiting to be populated, that's how good it is.

Cheers!

The TypeCon schedule is up.

I am too, but I am going back to bed as soon as my stomach settles. I must have eaten too much web font debate or something.

T

David --

At TypeCon.com, select Program from the menu on the left. You probably did that.

What's not obvious it that when the Calendar loads, it defaults to Tuesday and only shows details for that day (one lone event). In the right hand panel, select each of the different Days in the second tier to get associated details.

@kent
You'll be needing a chair and a whip for this. Better pre-order.

rich

Okay now. I'm just trained to ignore light grey type.

Cheers!

In my personal opinion, after seeing the latest edition of Firefox now supporting the @font-face thing, I think we really need a new format. There must be a better solution for us then simply let the web developers put raw OTF/TTF in a public server. I think the Ascender proposal seems to be the best pragmatic one until now. Maybe services like Typekit could be good alternatives also, but it is still too mysterious to have an opinion about it.

I wish you have a good Typecon. :)

Busy getting ready for TypeCon... here is something new to discuss: we just announced that by the end of this month we'll be updating our AscenderFonts.com website so users can purchase a web fonts license. We will supply fonts in the EOT format - yes, the less restrictive version we've dubbed "EOT Lite". We have discussed this all the type designers and foundries which we have distribution agreements with, and have received great feedback and support. Our press release can be read here: AscenderFonts.com announces Web Fonts licenses

I bet this whole thing could get worked out if you just locked them in Shu’s room overnight.

Perhaps. And since I am on the Web Fonts panel it might happen anyway . . .

On another note, the Web Fonts panel may be increased in length. Don't quote me on that.

@billdavis: Will you also be licensing TTFs?

IE is now down to 50% market share so unless you do license TTFs, this annoucement isn't useful for web publishers. I note that rumours are spreading that some foundries are ALREADY licensing TTFs for the web with a corrupt NAME table so that they cannot be installed in desktop operating systems.

In the same rumor, however;

"Personally I am disappointed because I was hoping that the debate might move forward the concept of licence expression, where information about creator and publisher of linked items in a page (like video, photography, typefaces, etc) is available to the user through a machine-comprehendable format that is partially or completely wrapped around the media themselves."

...

Cheers!

Dave: IE is now down to 50% market share so unless you do license TTFs, this announcement isn’t useful for web publishers.

About as useful as supporting naked TTF/OTF linking in the other 50%.

I'm waiting for additional data on browser market share. The page you link to cites a single source for early data. Net Applications are still reviewing June figures.
___

Re. both naked TTF/OTF and EOT Lite: if it ain't compressed, it ain't a real web font format.

Making TTF a web font standard makes as little sense as making TIFF a web graphics standard.

@abattis: Will you also be licensing TTFs?

No. We have made clear our position not to license raw TTF and OTF fonts for use with @font-face in websites.

Again, we believe that EOT Lite provides a reasonable solution that addressed the concerns expressed by the other browser makers (by removing the patented font compression and URL binding parts of EOT).

We are offering web designers a solution that can be implemented today in IE, and hopefully in the not too distant future in the other browsers. We will do everything we can to encourage adoption of EOT Lite by other type designers/foundries, and by the browser makers.

As to John's comments about compression, as others have pointed out, there are ways to compress EOT fonts at the server.

@bill: Okay, thanks for your clarification. Is the actual text of the web fonts contract published yet?

@john: "Making TTF a web font standard makes as little sense as making TIFF a web graphics standard." Sadly I think a web font standard will be years off, and we'll be saddled with dual format web fonts.

Hope that the TypeCon panel will be recorded and posted on the web for those unable to make it :)

I agree that EOT Lite successfully removes anything browser vendors might reasonably object to. But does it also remove something font vendors might reasonably insist on?

Mind you, if what one is selling is the EOT files themselves, the vendor can put real customer info or at least a customer-specific serial number right in the font. This is a bit different than the EOT model we were envisioning when I was at Adobe, which was that we'd just let the customer do the EOT conversion themselves. But with EOT Lite the vendor might have more reason not to allow that.

But it's hard to comment much on Ascender's approach without knowing more about the license model / fee structure. Once that's public, there will be more to discuss.

Cheers,

T

@Phinney - Mind you, if what one is selling is the EOT files themselves, the vendor can put real customer info or at least a customer-specific serial number right in the font.

...right you are! and in addition, this (licensing, we are not selling yet), can be done with the evil "raw" OT font... and in addition, the file name can be changed with no adverse effects. This is not a long-term replacement for the PERM, however, which must be implemented before 'client-unseen' licensing can commence.

Cheers!

[[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2009JulSep/0440.html|Revised web fonts proposal]] by Tal Leming and Eric van Blokland.

"We are offering web designers a solution that can be implemented today in IE, and hopefully in the not too distant future in the other browsers."

Which is great. But note that most web developers don't give much thought to IE in terms of going out of the way to enhance things. IE has become the 'weird cousin' that you are still obligated to invite to all your birthday parties but do so reluctantly.

It does seem like we've hit some apex of momentum with @font-face options and products and conversations, though. Nice to see. Hopefully some form of solution that most can agree upon will surface by end of year.

@abattis, billdavis
"Hope that the TypeCon panel will be recorded and posted on the web for those unable to make it :)"

I have spoken to Kent Lew about this. If all are agreeable, I've got a Sony Hi-Def camera and tri-pod with me at TypeCon
and will gladly volunteer to record the event, no strings attached, claiming no rights. But, of course, it's up to others to decide if this is appropriate and OK with them.

@billdavis

At TypeCon, hoping you've got fairly firm answers on pricing, etc...
And how about those who just want to continue to process, say, Cambria, out of the Windows Fonts folder using Weft?
Are you now looking for license money for this?
Will the same tools as are made available to font-makers be freely available to anybody?

Richard Fink

Typotheque appear to have chosen a different approach:

http://www.typotheque.com/news/web_font_service_preview

Any thoughts about this?

. . .
Bert Vanderveen BNO

@richard fink: Wow man, video! That would be awesome!

Here is a compiled list of foundries, so far, who support (like the idea of) the .webfonts proposal set forth by Tal and Erik.

I really distrust the impression Bill Davis gives here that:

1. We did give this some thought and we solved the problem ril quick over the weekend and here is the solution so everybody please sign on KTHXBYE
2. This solution is a solution because it works in IE. We are in bed with Microsoft and IE is pretty much all that matters to us.
3. We’ve heard there are these things called “browsers” that other people use, but we haven’t met any of those people and I’m sure whatever’s involved in all that will just fall into line with IE anyway.
4. Web designers obviously want a solution that works in Internet Explorer for Microsoft Windows, since they use and admire both as much as we do.

What did I get wrong?

—
Joe Clark
http://joeclark.org/

@joeclark: The other browser developers were pretty clear that, in order for them to support EOT-Lite, MSIE would have to support regular TTF/OTF fonts. In fact I think Howcome proposed that compromise before this proposal, so it was for the lulz from the start, IMO.

…it was for the lulz from the start, IMO.

I think it was a little more serious, you know, how many web font pirates can fit on the head of a pin and all that.

@joeclark: You got it all wrong. Thanks for the sarcasm but it doesn't add much to this discussion.

Joe, we have proven over many years to always have the best interest of the type community in our hearts and actions.

We have been working hard on web fonts for a long time.

We respect Microsoft and certainly appreciate their unwavering support for the font community over many years; not just Ascender.

Any solution that requires Microsoft to switch from EOT will take three to four years to reach a critical mass of browser (yes IE) users and anything resembling cross-browser compatibility with therefore take that long. You are probably so busy doing other things that you were unaware of this.

Mozilla objected to two things about EOT, to our knowledge. We have merely suggested removing those two things from EOT (and still feel we have a reasonable solution). Not exactly an 'in bed with Microsoft' approach.

Re. both naked TTF/OTF and EOT Lite: if it ain’t compressed, it ain’t a real web font format.

Any web content can be compressed on the fly and all those webfont services will probably use this techniqe.
http://www.websiteoptimization.com/speed/tweak/compress/

Typotheque appear to have chosen a different approach:
Any thoughts about this?

It's a wonderful example that even a "smaller" foundry can pull it off, it they want to.