From: Sergey Malkin (sergeym@windows.microsoft.com)
Date: Thu May 28 2009 - 00:47:15 CDT
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 [mailto:behnam.rassi@gmail.com]
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!
-B
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