| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Web Open Font Format backed by Mozilla, type foundries (ars technica)Web Open Font Format backed by Mozilla, type foundries (ars technica)Posted Nov 3, 2009 8:36 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627)In reply to: Web Open Font Format backed by Mozilla, type foundries (ars technica) by nim-nim Parent article: Web Open Font Format backed by Mozilla, type foundries (ars technica)
> Fonts are not content they are a technical component used to render info
> just like codecs.
OK, there are two kinds of Web font usage:
The current interest in Web fonts, both from font vendors and authors, is overwhelmingly about case #1. That is what I mean by "content".
I think you're focused on case #2. I agree that's an important case, and that it's a bit like video codecs, but this has nothing to do with WOFF.
You seem to be arguing that Mozilla is obligated to invest in the creation of free fonts to cover all Unicode characters for which free fonts don't already exist. I don't see why we're *obligated*. It might be a good thing to do, but flaming us for not doing it isn't the best way to present your request.
Given there are organizations already working on free font creation, if they sent a grant proposal our way we'd probably look at it...
(Log in to post comments)
Web Open Font Format backed by Mozilla, type foundries (ars technica) Posted Nov 3, 2009 8:57 UTC (Tue) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
> The current interest in Web fonts, both from font vendors and authors, is
> overwhelmingly about case #1. That is what I mean by "content".
IIRC when the w3c consulted about eot, web fonts and @font-face the response they got from FLOSS users is that they wanted it for i18n (your case 2). And not because it was a good solution, but because no one was investing in FLOSS fonts, so they were not complete, and even when someone was creating a good floss font, users didn't know about it, because browser creators (proprietary and floss alike) studiously ignored them and made no effort to make web site authors of web site users aware of them.
Also the "look" part is oversold by foundries, there are maybe a score of basic font design (ignoring fantasy fonts, but fantasy can be handled by images just fine because no one sane uses for long runs of text), all the rest are variations on them, and most users would be hard pressed to find differences between some of those basic designs. (that's why font classifications are possible BTW, you have thousands of fonts, but most of them are just slight variations few care about)
> Given there are organizations already working on free font creation, if > they sent a grant proposal our way we'd probably look at it...
That's nice to know and the communication would probably have been clearer if it had been stated from the start up.
Web Open Font Format backed by Mozilla, type foundries (ars technica) Posted Nov 3, 2009 19:27 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
Actually, it turns out that Mozilla *is* financially supporting free font creation. We're a patron of the Open Font Library.
http://openfontlibrary.fontly.org/patrons
So, what exactly is the complaint here, nim-nim?
Web Open Font Format backed by Mozilla, type foundries (ars technica) Posted Nov 3, 2009 21:25 UTC (Tue) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
The Open Font Library is a good project, but so far it's been better at collecting hobbyist fonts and convincing their authors to re-license than at creating the kind of wide-unicode fonts needed to support minority groups.
Also Firefox has an huge public footprint (which is being used for woff right now), and some of this influence (in the form of public referals for example) would be worth a lot to many font projects.
|
|
||||||||||||