RE: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer

From: Sergey Malkin (
Date: Thu May 28 2009 - 00:47:15 CDT

  • Next message: Andrew West: "Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer"

    Bandwidth and download time is not a problem specific to fonts and I always thought browser cache is exactly intended to solve it.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Behnam []
    Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:29 PM
    To: Sergey Malkin
    Cc: Roozbeh Pournader; Unicode Mailing List
    Subject: Re: Pb with Unicode Tifinagh with Internet Explorer

    Font embedding is only useful if it allowed font download and installation so that it wouldn't load it again when the web-page is reloaded the second time. This of-course has a copyright issue.
    As it stands now, it doesn't have much utility. Ironically, the languages that need it the most belong to countries that still have a sporadic connection with 56K modem to the internet at best!
    On 27-May-09, at 7:44 PM, Sergey Malkin wrote:

    >> How many browsers/platforms do you think support embedded fonts in
    >> same format
    > Of course, there is no such thing as "any machine". But 50-80%
    > (depending on country and who you ask) of Internet users use IE, which
    > supports EOT font embedding. If this is not enough Safari supports raw
    > font embedding, as well as FireFox 3.5 and Opera10 Betas. Having
    > single font in EOT and raw font is not big problem.
    >> and with the same level of support for the "complex" rendering rules?
    > Percentage of machines that can shape text according to OpenType
    > complex script shaping specifications is even higher than IE market
    > share, it is even higher than Windows market share. Uniscribe, Pango,
    > ICU, Apple, Adobe all support OpenType-based shaping (not for all
    > scripts, of course), so this should not be a problem to use OpenType
    > fonts for embedding.
    > Thanks,
    > Sergey

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 28 2009 - 00:51:06 CDT