Comments on: Embedded OpenType and the W3C

By: Joeri

Joeri — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:28:08 +0000

@JeromeLapointe: They are buying fonts to use in images that get used in websites. That’s probably the market they’re concerned about.

By: JeromeLapointe

JeromeLapointe — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:16:56 +0000

Also DRMs just incite people to recode files into new ones… making the discovery of illegally use files harder.

Font’s that prevent you from getting embedded will just get dissected and recoded to be completely opened and with slight modifications you won’t have anyways of even saying it’s the same font.

By: JeromeLapointe

JeromeLapointe — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:55:52 +0000

“Just give the responsibility of breaking the law to the site designers”
Exactly… where is this concern for breaking the law come from anyways…

You know… use of fonts on the web is just not a market that font makers have right now. People use the provided fonts… they are not buying fonts for their websites… logos maybe. What business model are they trying to protect here?

Font is important… just not THAT important. If we have to keep using verdana or then fine by me!

When something open comes along I’ll look into using it.

By: Gordon

Gordon — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:39:25 +0000

I am fine with the fonts I have at my disposal. They are functional. But then again, I understand why companies would want their corporate fonts used. Let’s see how this develops.

@fuzzy if you look at some of the licenses of stock companies around, you’d be surprised to see how many of them indeed demand you to prevent downloading of the stock item or linking to it – effectively disabling use of their stock on the web, although they claim you may use it.

By: eyelidlessness

eyelidlessness — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:40:03 +0000

Boo to the following:
- DRM
- silly renaming of things we don’t like with stuff like “microshaft” and “assender”

By: Nosredna

Nosredna — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:39:23 +0000

Is there a good directory of free fonts?

By: reaktivo

reaktivo — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:13:05 +0000

Just give the responsability of breaking the law to the site designers, as it has always have been with images and texts, supporting only EOT is a step backward, theres a lot (but with less quality) free opentype fonts. Why not support both?

By: mojave

mojave — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:45:20 +0000

The first clue something fishy is going on here is that Microsoft supports something with the word “Open” in the title. What we come to realize very quickly is that “Open” in this case means “Closed”. It means DRM’d fonts. And it means AssEnder and Microshaft can both go take a flying leap off a very tall pile of servers.

We can take this move by Microsoft and Assenders in the same vein OOXML. Unfortunately there are no real open alternatives to combat this load of bull puky so the w3c might fall for it.

By: fuzzy76

fuzzy76 — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:52:17 +0000

Quick! We need to stop embedding images too!!! Cause… you know… they can be copyrighted! And what about text? We need a DRM-enabled format for text as well…

By: Joeri

Joeri — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:39:33 +0000

The FUD from ascender is silly. So what if you link to TTF and not to EOT? That doesn’t automatically make what you are doing illegal. And having only EOT supported does not actually protect any font rights holder.

Besides, is EOT capable of supporting fonts not tied to a particular hostname? If I have to design my installer so that EOT files are generated for every customer, I will not be a happy camper.