Sorry. I need to clarify where i was going with this :) My point is not really to do with licensing (i know fonts can be embedded under the OFL). But, i'm aware that embedding has not really been seen as a 'best practise' way of distributing libre fonts. When i say distributing, i mean *spreading them around*, not simply *allowing them to be used*. Now, i know some designers will say that the 'most proper' way to distribute libre fonts is as full-on source package, and then there is the Google webfont approach; binaries up front, git repos of source files at the back. etc etc. What i'm suggesting, may be seen as "lowering the bar" :) but i'm interested in ideas turn the sort of situation some of us have with Adobe, font squirrel, etc, on it's head; instead of seeing these situations as problems (because these services are not making freely available binary files, or source files), i wonder if it's possible to see advantages instead. One advantage i see is that a font served as a single font object (and not a bundle of license texts, source files etc) is way more mobile, free (as in bird), and able to spread virally. It may be simple a case of adding licensing info with font metadata, and not relying on bundles text files.
ps - someone should build a web service, that pulls the obfuscated OFL's fonts from the Edge / Typekit etc servers, parses them, prepares them, and then builds them back into a OTF, TTF, and a @font-face kit for easy download. Would be cool ;) -v On 4 Jun 2013, at 08:19, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > Embedding fonts you can't extract easily is ok too. The point here is that > Web fonts are never embedding, they are always separate resources that are > linked to documents. > > On Jun 4, 2013 11:13 AM, "Vernon Adams" <v...@newtypography.co.uk> wrote: > Are we saying that embedding a font that a user can extract, is a perfectly > acceptable (i.e. FLOSS-like) way of distributing a libre font? > I like the idea of that, but i'm trying to think of what weaknesses in that > method, and what could be ways to enable embedding as a means of distribution > whilst also protecting the freedom of the font? > > -vern > > > > > On 4 Jun 2013, at 08:05, Dave Crossland <d...@lab6.com> wrote: > > > Extracting the fonts is just as easy > > > > On Jun 4, 2013 4:59 AM, "Victor Gaultney" <vt...@gaultney.org> wrote: > > On 3 Jun 2013, at 23:47, Khaled Hosny <khaledho...@eglug.org> wrote: > > > >> You can embed a webfont as base64 encoded string inside the HTML file. > > > > Good point, Khaled. That does sound like traditional embedding. The key > > differences from standard web fonts use are that: > > > > - The font is delivered as part of the HTML file, not a separate resource > > - The font is provided by the same server as the rest of the doc > > - The font is used for only one document > > - The font is always present, even if the doc is viewed offline > > > > I'm not sure whether an embedded web font would be any more difficult to > > extract than normal web fonts. Anyone have thoughts on this? > > > > These differences are significant. Nicolas has been out of the office for a > > couple of weeks. When he gets back in the office I'll talk with him about > > adjusting the FAQ and web fonts paper to address fonts delivered within the > > HTML file. > > > >> Even the common case of just linking to the file is not much different > >> from bundling the font in the zip container of ODT or DOCX. > > > > I think it is. In a zip the fonts travel with the doc and they cannot be > > used by other docs unless you extract them. > > > > V >
