Will W3C Accept DRM For Webfonts?
dotne writes "Microsoft has submitted Embedded OpenType (EOT) to W3C and a slimy campaign for EOT has been launched. EOT is a DRM layer on top of normal TrueType/Opentype files; EOT ties a font file to a certain web page or site and prevents reuse by other pages/sites. Microsoft's IE has supported EOT for years, but it has largely been ignored due to the clumsiness of having to regenerate font files when a page changes. Now that other browsers are moving to support normal TrueType and OpenType on the web (Safari, Opera, Mozilla, Prince), W3C is faced with a question: should they bless Microsoft's EOT for use on the web? Or, should they encourage normal font files on the web and help break Microsoft's forgotten monopoly?"
I always found truetype fonts sucked period, and the adobe type1 fonts seemed to render better, especially when printed.
From a technical viewpoint, today, there is very little to distinguish the formats. TrueType only does quadratic Bezier curves where Type 1 does cubic, but it is trivial to interpolate cubic curves with quadratic ones, at a slight cost in code size.
When you buy fonts, the higher-quality fonts tend to be in the Type 1 format, but that is for historical reasons.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
You only need 3 fonts. A serif, a san-serif, and a fixed width. For English at least.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You're doing it wrong. Both yogh and wynn have unicode code points. They work just fine here.
Don't use the same name, they're usually Trademarked.
And if you copied 100% of the size hinting, they would claim you were copying the program portion.
But, in essence, yes.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...