Revised Web Fonts Proposal

[billdavis]

This topic was imported from the Typophile platform

Following our proposal for a Web specific OpenType-based font format (which we named OTW), we received a lot of feedback from type designers, web designers and publishers. Most of the feedback was positive. People saw that differentiating web fonts from desktop fonts, and including licensing information in the font file was a step in the right direction.

Moving the plan forward, we felt that with the support of browser makers we could have OTW standardized within two years, and have the majority of installed browsers supporting it within five to six years, based on current browser upgrade rates.

However, web designers want to use commercial fonts today. They don’t want to wait five or six years. This is evident from the use of Flash-based solutions, and the interest in commercial services like TypeKit. So we took a step back and asked ourselves what can we do to accelerate the rate of adoption? With this in mind we decided to take another look at EOT.

Microsoft’s EOT format has a large installed base and is supported in every version of Internet Explorer since IE version 4. And as IE users are typically the slowest to upgrade, adding EOT support to other browsers would provide a quicker adoption of a single web font standard because the other browsers have much faster upgrade rates. However, we know that the other browser makers don’t like EOT because it includes URL binding, proprietary compression and gives Microsoft a head-start.

With this in mind we propose “EOT Lite”. Essentially EOT minus URL binding and compression, but with the addition of licensing information. The benefits are obvious, EOT Lite fonts will work with IE4 and above, can be easily supported in other browsers, and with their faster upgrade rates, we could see 90% of installed browsers supporting the format within a year. EOT Lite would still have the benefits of OTW: a font file that is differentiated from desktop fonts and containing license information.

In summary, and as a result of a significant dialogue with many stakeholders, we believe EOT Lite is the right solution for web fonts. We encourage everyone to support this solution with us.

[J.Montalbano]

Bill,

How will your EOT Lite handle OT fonts with PS outlines?

[billdavis]

James - good question! I assume "Yes" is the answer you are hoping for?

The current public EOT specification is at http://www.w3.org/Submission/EOT/. There is nothing in there to prohibit CFF being stored in the FontData section.

[Dunwich Type]

The benefits are obvious, EOT Lite fonts will work with IE4 and above, can be easily supported in other browsers, and with their faster upgrade rates, we could see 90% of installed browsers supporting the format within a year.

Does that mean that the non-Microsoft web browser programmers are willing to implement EOT Lite regardless of their suspicions about Microsoft standards, DRM, etc?

[outrasfontes]

we could see 90% of installed browsers supporting the format within a year.

Have the other browser makers already been heard about that? I mean, who (beyond Microsoft, of couse) is interested in implementing a support for this format in the next browser versions? Once again, I think it will be crucial for the success or fail of any format.

[billdavis]

We can't speak for all browser programmers, but we believe most developers would be willing to implement a webfonts solution that:

1) provides web designers and developers access to the fonts they are clamoring for

2) does so without having to wait years for it to be supported in all browsers

3) does so in a format that major commercial font developers support

4) does so without JavaScript, Flash or other hacks

We believe EOT Lite is that solution.

[jmvanderpol]

The benefits are obvious, EOT Lite fonts will work with IE4 and above, can be easily supported in other browsers, and with their faster upgrade rates, we could see 90% of installed browsers supporting the format within a year. EOT Lite would still have the benefits of OTW: a font file that is differentiated from desktop fonts and containing license information.

While I applaud & dream of that kind of adoption rate. How open is the EOT format? Can Microsoft start making selfish changes that will hurt other adopters down the line, one adoption has reached critical mass? I feel that is really the question needing answered. I really don't feel Mozilla/Opera/Google will jump onto a standard Microsoft controls given the track record of the company in the past (regarding to standards).

[aluminum]

I know there will definitely be an OS vs. MS challenge there. But fingers crossed...

[metalfoot]

Oh. Ummm... OK. Here's hoping that Mozilla and/or Opera are willing to add EOT lite support...

[jdaggett]

The t2embed library used to support embedded font usage on Windows does not support CFF fonts, so no version of IE will load them.

What exactly is the "licensing information" that you describe? How do you expect it to be used? Why do you need a new format for licensing information when the license record in the name table already exists?

[Richard Fink]

I'm a little foggy on how previous versions of IE will, with seeming magic, ignore some of the restrictions built into EOT. If this is the case, and it has intrinsic advantages, why doesn't IE support this new lite format already?
And a lack of support for CFF fonts - as John Daggett points out - is so backwards-looking that I have trouble NOT seeing it as a deal-breaker.
I echo his concerns and questions.
I'm not saying this is a fudge-job interim solution, but it kind of looks that way at first glance.
It also ignores compression, even as an optional feature.

I think there is patience (albeit limited) among designers and developers as long as it means a dependable, interoperable, long-term solution that isn't going to leave us with the need for yet another format five years down the road.
IMHO.

I'd like to hear more before giving any firm feedback.

[Thomas Phinney]

lack of support for CFF fonts

The EOT *format* supports CFF OT just fine. But neither WEFT nor IE have yet done so. Unfortunately, nothing anyone does is going to magically get CFF support into old versions of IE. Standardizing on some stripped down EOT gives an option for folks who want to get web fonts working today, and certainly doesn't preclude supporting OT CFF as well.

Cheers,

T

[dan_reynolds]

Wouldnt CFF fonts look like garbage on the web, since they lack TT hinting? As web fonts take off, is it worth it to try and convince designers to make TTF-flavored OT, with delta hints?

[Dunwich Type]

Wouldnt CFF fonts look like garbage on the web, since they lack TT hinting?

That will depend on the font and operating system. Lighter weights of sans fonts work pretty well on Mac OS, but bold weights render poorly at small sizes. Hinting will be the next big stumbling block for web fonts: designers are going to go up in arms when they realize how bad the fonts look and blame font designers, but they won’t want to pay for well-hinted screen fonts because so few exist that there’s really no baseline for what they should cost. On the upside, I think many experienced web designers learned to think about legibility issues when nobody could read all those eight-pixel bitmap fonts that were hot in Flash sites a few years back, so hopefully we won’t have to live through two years of godawful unhinted serif faces.

[dan_reynolds]

No baseline? Foundries large (and a few small ones, too) have been licensing well-hinted fonts to corporate clients for office use for like a decade, if not longer. And if you want to know how cheap a well-hinted font license can be, look no further than that recent Spiekermann...

[Dunwich Type]

Foundries large (and a few small ones, too) have been licensing well-hinted fonts to corporate clients for office use for like a decade, if not longer.

I was referring to retail fonts. Corporate licensing pricing is not especially applicable to the many small jobs that have a total budget much smaller than the cost of a well-hinted corporate font license.

Look no further than that recent Spiekermann...

But how many type designers sell enough fonts to recoup the costs of TrueType hinting a four-weight family for $80?

[dan_reynolds]

It isn't just corporate sales. Monotype tt fonts with esq hinting and Linotype tt fonts with xsf hinting are just slightly more expensive than their non-hinted versions iirc. I'm sure that these aren't the only instances.

As for the pricing sinking issue and distributors' prices... Well, not every font that could be used on the web should be used on the web. Especially for smaller text.

[Thomas Phinney]

Wouldnt CFF fonts look like garbage on the web, since they lack TT hinting?

On Mac OS using the system rasterizer, hinting is irrelevant or nearly so.

ClearType is capable of working very nicely with CFF OpenType, as demonstrated by the WPF rasterizer for CFF. But this is hardly mainstream, I guess.

As web fonts take off, is it worth it to try and convince designers to make TTF-flavored OT, with delta hints?

Delta hints are not of much interest for web fonts any more, because most are ignored by ClearType, and all are irgnored by the Mac OS rasterizer. At least, that's my impression. (With the possible exception in ClearType of deltas on Y-direction CVTs rather than directly on points, which could increase x-height at some key sizes or the like.)

I could be mistaken about the degree of uselessness of delta hints, and am open to being corrected.

Note also that regular GDI ClearType is turned on in IE 6 and higher, even when not on at the OS level.

Regards,

T

[typodermic]

Will browsers support some OpenType features too?

[abattis]

@ray: Yes, there is on going current discussion of how to support features in CSS3 :-)

[dberlowgone]

>I could be mistaken about the degree of uselessness of delta hints, and am open to being corrected.

Both Windows and Mac ignore x hints but not y. Delta instructions are ignored on the Mac. Windows only ignores them if they are 'out of line.' But since deltas can be used in the places other than glyph instructions and in ways other than to disturb the priceless rendering of ClearType, they are neither totally useless nor completely ignored.

Both of these OS have fallen qualitatively behind places like Pre and soon, some other vendors who use FreeType.

>Wouldnt CFF fonts look like garbage on the web, since they lack TT hinting?
Most will. But the true garbage time comes when people start using fonts that are not as robust as the few they have now, i.e. hints wouldn't even help.

Cheers!

[abattis]

@dberlow: Both of these OS have fallen qualitatively behind places like Pre and soon, some other vendors who use FreeType. - er, are you saying that FreeType is the best quality renderer?

[Thomas Phinney]

I think Dave is saying that FreeType is going to soon outpace the OS vendors. Certainly it was well behind the last time I saw it, but these things change.

Cheers,

T

[Dunwich Type]

Both of these OS have fallen qualitatively behind places like Pre and soon, some other vendors who use FreeType.

Can we expect FreeType to exceed the quality of the OS Rendering on all LCD screens in the near future or is the rendering quality due to customizing FreeType to work well with the specific devices?

[Richard Fink]

@thomas
>"The EOT *format* supports CFF OT just fine. But neither WEFT nor IE have yet done so. Unfortunately, nothing anyone does is going to magically get CFF support into old versions of IE. Standardizing on some stripped down EOT gives an option for folks who want to get web fonts working today, and certainly doesn’t preclude supporting OT CFF as well."

I'm still not getting it. At least not easily. And if I'm not, then I'm assuming a similar reaction from others like me who understand browsers, standards, but are not overly technical with regards to the subtleties and differences betweeen font formats.
What I'm hearing is: "EOT Lite will give us backward compatibility but yet in some ways it won't."
Huh?

@Billdavis or anybody: Can you clear up this confusion?