I don't know how big these fonts are (download size) and I have a terrible sense of font quality. I do know that I want to reduce download size.
I'd be all for making some or all of these fonts available, but not as the defaults. We could host them on our download servers and download them in the background post-install (or on-demand), like we do for non-US spellcheck dictionaries. That doesn't buy much over @font-face availability other than the ability for users to select the fonts as their defaults. Publishing the URLs so anyone could use them in @font-face directives would be a good idea in any case (presuming all distribution and license issues are cleared). One argument that would sway me to including an increase in the initial download size is if we had a very high quality universal font that would let us support a lot of scripts out-of-the-box without complicated font-fallback. --Mark On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 21:49, Alex Russell <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
