On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Peter Kasting <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Alex Russell <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> What do others think about including this font with Chrome and making >> it available to content in the font-family list by default? Also, it >> occurs to me that including the Droid TTF files on the Google CDN >> might make them more easily usable on other browsers that support >> @font-face (FF3.1, Safari, etc.). Starting to host fonts the way we >> currently host Ajax libraries seems like something that might be good >> for the world at large. Objections? > > I think hosting these somewhere fast and easy to get at and giving them good > terms is a good thing. I don't think they should be included with Chrome by > default. Part of the point of @font-face is to allow usage of fonts users > don't have, making this less compelling; and I'm always opposed to larger > download sizes.
A potential plus is that we could (finally?) count on having at least one consistent font between platforms. I'm not sure that's an un-adulterated Good Thing (TM), but I can imagine wanting a uniform main body font that's not whatever junk Windows or Linux default to. It always pains me that the default body font on some boxes is still a serif'd font, and Times New Roman at that. Gah. > In this case, it's not obvious to me that there is a lot of > demand for these or that we would bootstrap such demand by including them > with Chrome. Fair enough. The CDN thing sounds doubly important then...perhaps we should also consider hosting EOT versions until MSFT gets their act together. Regards --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
