Re: [OpenFontLibrary] typekit - possible solution for foundries for fonts on the web?
Interesting. I wonder what foundries make up their metacatalgoue. Regards, Dave On 29 May 2009, 9:31 PM, Christopher Fynn cf...@gmx.net wrote: They've just said this: I just wanted to clarify some of the confusion over the mention of JavaScript in the post. Typekit isn’t using any sort of image replacement for rendering fonts on web pages. We’re using the CSS @font-face declaration to link to Truetype and OpenType files. We’re using JavaScript to simplify that process and account for various browser versions (like automatically swapping in EOT for Internet Explorer). So what is the big deal? They are charging people for fonts they have presumably licensed. If they are serving Truetype and OpenType files there is no particular protection for the foundries. Chris Liam R E Quin wrote: On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 18:35 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote: If they don't serve fonts, what d...
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] typekit - possible solution for foundries for fonts on the web?
They've just said this: I just wanted to clarify some of the confusion over the mention of JavaScript in the post. Typekit isn’t using any sort of image replacement for rendering fonts on web pages. We’re using the CSS @font-face declaration to link to Truetype and OpenType files. We’re using JavaScript to simplify that process and account for various browser versions (like automatically swapping in EOT for Internet Explorer). So what is the big deal? They are charging people for fonts they have presumably licensed. If they are serving Truetype and OpenType files there is no particular protection for the foundries. Chris Liam R E Quin wrote: On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 18:35 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote: If they don't serve fonts, what do they serve? remains to be seen, but I presume a mix of subsetted fonts, EOT files, and javascript that draws on canvas elements, or flash, depending on the browser. The non-scaling part is that the master fonts live on their server. But, we'll see, and I think good will come out of it one way or another. Best, Liam
[OpenFontLibrary] typekit - possible solution for foundries for fonts on the web?
Saw this today - I wonder how viable it is? Also interesting to consider in relation to where OFLB stands. Are we going to be having lots of font-hosting specialists that people can link into? Obviously this is a closed-system, but flexible enough to offer what people need. http://blog.typekit.com/2009/05/27/introducing-typekit/ Cheers, James -- James Weiner +44 7713 005 056 Unicorn Creative | http://unicorncreative.com
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] typekit - possible solution for foundries for fonts on the web?
2009/5/28 James Weiner ja...@unicorncreative.com: Saw this today - I wonder how viable it is? Sounds like a hosted, subscription-based Cufon technology. Also interesting to consider in relation to where OFLB stands. Are we going to be having lots of font-hosting specialists that people can link into? Obviously this is a closed-system, but flexible enough to offer what people need. I'm glad to see they are not promoting DRM - or at least say that they are not.
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] typekit - possible solution for foundries for fonts on the web?
James Weiner wrote: Saw this today - I wonder how viable it is? Saw this too, its a trending topic on twitter. People, apparently, want font linking. Looking at the screenshot[1], they're using JavaScript to include the font linking code. This probably means that they fall back to flash or pre-rendered images if the browser doesn't support the CSS. They could also be doing things like tracking the usage of fonts, injecting ads, or obfuscating the download URL. Just speculation, but an interesting idea. [1] http://www.flickr.com/photos/veen/3572372312/sizes/o/ -- Aaron sachimp.com getCorkd.com signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] typekit - possible solution for foundries for fonts on the web?
If they don't serve fonts, what do they serve? Regards, Dave On 28 May 2009, 6:18 PM, Liam R E Quin l...@holoweb.net wrote: On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 16:03 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote: [..] I'm glad to see they are not promoting DRM - or at least say that they are not. Yes. Instead of giving you digital files with limited usage controlled by software, they don't let you have the file at all. At least we don't have to wear leg-irons when we walk outside Right, they solved that by keeping us indoors But the good side is that they're helping (perhaps) to fuel demand. Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] typekit - possible solution for foundries for fonts on the web?
Liam R E Quin wrote: Yes. Instead of giving you digital files with limited usage controlled by software, they don't let you have the file at all. At least we don't have to wear leg-irons when we walk outside Right, they solved that by keeping us indoors totally true and a great point, and as kottke points out in a quick report (http://www.kottke.org/09/05/typekit-real-fonts-for-the-web), that's pretty darn close to the Youtube model. some relevant differences regarding online type, though: * support for embedding the fonts is already mostly there, whereas support for embedded video in HTML took quite some time after Youtube et al did it with Flash * libre video hosting facilities, likewise, took some time to appear; with OFL, there's already some headway (OFL is there, Typekit is vaporware so far) * fonts are much less an active element of an online experience -- i'll happily watch 10 videos on Youtube, forward them to my friends and forget about them the next day; online fonts aren't really the kind of subject you'd bring up at a party, or share with anyone other than a type designer or web developer. * which reminds me -- with Typekit, you're not supposed to share, just watch a font being used in a page. So the OFL model has still a major selling point compared to TypeKit -- no dependency on 'upstream', ability to download and edit, FLOSS approach to filling out gaps (e.g. i doubt they'll support non-latin alphabets out from the start), and no financial compromise of any sort. But the good side is that they're helping (perhaps) to fuel demand. totally -- i usually try to convince people to switch to a free tool by mentioning 'it's does the stuff InIllusShop does, but it's free, open, transparent, scriptable, community-driven [...]'. Maybe having a proprietary tool to compare with might be a good thing for doing PR (much as the EOT page on the OFL wiki helps make a point regarding open fonts). ricardo
