[OpenFontLibrary] Google Font Directory

2010-05-19 Thread Dave Crossland
Hi, http://code.google.com/webfonts/family?family=Cantarell :-) http://code.google.com/apis/webfonts/docs/getting_started.html -- Regards, Dave

Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Google Font Directory

2010-05-19 Thread Nicolas Spalinger
Dave Crossland wrote: Hi, http://code.google.com/webfonts/family?family=Cantarell :-) http://code.google.com/apis/webfonts/docs/getting_started.html Congrats! From OFLB folks I can see that your Cantarell, Dennis' Molengo and Barry's Goudy are part of the initial offering of the Directory.

Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Google Font Directory

2010-05-19 Thread Nicolas Spalinger
Garrick Van Buren wrote: Nicolas, This is fantastic - a huge win for the OFL. Great work. Well, I'm certainly glad that the licensing model has empowered various designers to get Google's attention and support, but the kudos really goes to all the work done by the designers of the font

Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Google Font Directory

2010-05-19 Thread Garrick Van Buren
Yes - I've been looking into the WebFontLoader. I'm not sure I fully understand the use case it solves for. I appreciate that not all browsers implement @font-face identically, and Javascript feels a un-natural and out-of-place for a CSS-based technology. --- Garrick Van

Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Google Font Directory

2010-05-19 Thread Garrick Van Buren
On May 19, 2010, at 3:00 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: FOUT? Yes, that's what I've heard the major benefit is. I don't see it as significant an issue to warrant getting Javascript involved. -- Garrick.

Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Google Font Directory

2010-05-19 Thread Dave Crossland
On 19 May 2010 22:09, Garrick Van Buren garr...@kernest.com wrote: On May 19, 2010, at 3:00 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: FOUT? Yes, that's what I've heard the major benefit is. I don't see it as significant an issue to warrant getting Javascript involved. For large fonts, active() is nice I

Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Google Font Directory

2010-05-19 Thread Garrick Van Buren
On May 19, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: On 19 May 2010 22:09, Garrick Van Buren garr...@kernest.com wrote: On May 19, 2010, at 3:00 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: FOUT? Yes, that's what I've heard the major benefit is. I don't see it as significant an issue to warrant getting

Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Google Font Directory

2010-05-19 Thread Dave Crossland
On 19 May 2010 22:23, Garrick Van Buren garr...@kernest.com wrote: I'd much rather see work being done to make large fonts smaller. Roll on WOFF. Font weenies are just a bunch of wankers who make so much noise about how important exactly the right font is that they get other people to pay