Quinn - what do you mean by "so I don't have to use @font-face"?
Vernon - thanks for calling out the Fontue project. I stopped developing it for
2 reasons:
- browser support stabilized to the point where TFF & EOT provide
sufficient coverage
- my opinion that @font-face works
Rich, your directness makes me laugh :D
There’s something of The Onion about all this; “Local man thoroughly
unimpressed by 30–40% of commercial fonts”. Didn’t they once run a story “Local
man shuns restaurant because of bad kerning in menu”?
also, talking of keeping objective, which is the le
Hi Quinn!
On 29 October 2013 13:05, Quinn Keaveney wrote:
> By saying I don't want to use @ff I just mean that I want to use an @ff that
> obfuscates the link/src file so you can not just click and download the
> woff.
This is impossible. You may find http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt
helpful in
I’m not sure Quinn is after what you think he is :)
Quinn… do you mean you want to serve fonts like the example i am serving from
http://newtypography.net/testing/ ?
A.k.a you want your fonts to be served to remote web pages by simply adding a
'link href’ line to the head of the source html doc
Something to note: From a performance perspective, most lag is caused by
setting up the HTTP connection. Essentially, anything other than
Apache/Nginx/etc serving a static file (just like js/jpg/png/etc) on the same
files system as the webpage itself will degrade delivery performance. Yes,
cach
On 29 October 2013 14:11, Garrick van Buren wrote:
> Yes, cache headers can eliminate this issue for subsequent loads - assuming
> your site is someplace people will visit repeatedly within the cache
> lifetime.
This is why Google Fonts is better than self hosting. Its likely
you've already cache
I think we could assume that someone self hosting a handfull of fonts isn’t
likely to be pushing to billions of font calls, per font, every week.
Though it would be interesting to run an experiment and see what figures are
possible :)
On 29 Oct 2013, at 11:19, Dave Crossland wrote:
> On 29
On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:19 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
> This is why Google Fonts is better than self hosting. Its likely
> you've already cached the most popular Google Fonts.
Sure, that's the argument for linking to any of Google-hosted resources
(jQuery, etc).
Personally, I feel this approac
I think you are right.
Imo the web would be much more robust and fertile if type was even more
‘democratised’ and ‘autonomous’. The big web companies would be much better
served by a few big font servers amid swarms of small font servers. Repeating
myself, i know, :) but if webfont servers could
Vernon,
I think we're already there. Modern web servers do a great job of serving font
files just as they do a great job of serving image files, javascript files,
html files, and css files. From my perspective, treating one kind of
web-delivered asset differently than others introduces an unne
Sure, i think we are nearly already there. When i say ‘webfont server’ i just
mean anything (e.g. just a bit of php) that allows a user in one part of the
word to create a webpage that pulls a font from another part of the world,
without the need for too much css coding. I don’t see any reason w
On 29 October 2013 17:58, Garrick van Buren wrote:
> treating one kind of web-delivered asset differently than others introduces
> an unnecessary level of complexity
Serving fonts isn't as simple as your CSS though; its useful to have a
web font serve that parses the UA string and does eg serve
12 matches
Mail list logo
