On 21 March 2011 06:39, Christopher Adams <ch...@raysend.com> wrote: > is everyone of the opinion that there is less and less > rationale for implementing static image font samples at all? For > example, http://www.google.com/webfonts is a @font-face-only affair.
GWF has 'font.menu" files with 5-12 glyphs in to display the font name on the landing page, instead of 'fontname.png' The PNG is WAY smaller than the 'MENU' file so I think PNGs are better. Perhaps if we are generating EOT/WOFF/SVG/etc then generating a 'menu' file like Google Web Fonts instead of a PNG makes sense. However, the other bonus for PNG generation is that we get to display the font rendered by Pango/Harfbuzz, which is a leading OpenType layout engine and puts proprietary software to shame! :)