Revised Web Fonts Proposal

[abattis]

@tphinney: I thought he might be saying that FreeType had ALREADY outpaced them, which would be news to me! :) I think James has the right idea though; since possible to customize FreeType to work well with specific devices, so its likely that "freetype is highest quality" will become a kind of urban legend...

[cfynn]

With the release of Firefox 3.5, don't we effectively already have font linking/embedding, since every major browser now has some kind of support? - All it requires is a couple of lines of code to determine whether the browser is IE or other: if so use EOT font, otherwise use TTF/OTF. [Either do this yourself or get a service like TypeKit to do it for you].

Haven't we lost the plot? Shouldn't we be talking about the licensing model not the format? In the long run, is any web-only font format going to be any more effective at "protecting" fonts than various digital audio formats have been at "protecting" music? If there was going to be a special font format as standard for the web, shouldn't that have been sorted out *years* ago?

Unlicensed use of fonts on the internet should be *far* easier to police than unlicensed use of fonts in printed publications as you can devise a bot to search for them. Isn't it going to be much easier to search for and find sites using your fonts (legally or illegally) where the original un-obfuscated, un-subsetted fonts are being used?

No reputable commercial site is going to use unlicensed fonts - and those are the people who will actually pay for fonts. Won't the increased licensing fees for use of fonts on these sites far outweigh decreased sales (if any) from increased piracy?

- C

[abattis]

cflynn: "Won’t the increased licensing fees for use of fonts on these sites far outweigh decreased sales (if any) from increased piracy?" I don't think so, no, and it seems almost no one does.

[k.l.]

Richard Fink -- I’m still not getting it.

EOT, in the most simple case, is nothing but a wrapper around a TTF/OTF, more exactly a few header data which are followed by the actual TTF/OTF font data. (Font data can be compressed, or can be modestly obfuscated, but do not need to. Actually it would be easier especially for smaller foundries to do without these two options and just add the header.)
That certain browsers only support one flavor but not the other is hard to understand. If an issue, it is a browser issue rather than a font format issue. As simple as that.

Christopher Fynn -- Haven’t we lost the plot?

Yes.
Since @font-face is not heavily used yet (is it used at all), it is not too late to agree on supporting only EOT rather than also TTF/OTF. It is be a clean solution, and with information given in the EOT header, services like TypeKit were mostly superfluous.
Discussions -- including on www-style and www-font list -- do not make any sense to me. The funny thing is that my own position has changed thanks to said discussions. Before, I was all for plain TTF/OTF. But web guys' "for free" and "-anti" ideology and fabricated arguments showed me how they tick.
The point is that EOT's header info expressly states who may use the font (by URL info as well as by EOT "format" itself which tells a OS "that's not for you") -- which additional information prevents abuse in the first place. No need for policing which I am not particularly fond of.

In so far, I welcome the new proposal.

[cfynn]

Karsten Luecke — Since @font-face is not heavily used yet (is it used at all), it is not too late to agree on supporting only EOT rather than also TTF/OTF.

Are Safari, Opera, Mozilla going to remove support for TTF/OTF? — hardly seems likely.

Mozilla says patented technology used in EOT is "a show stopper". Are the patent holders concerned going to free these patents — or Mozilla and other like minded parties going to change their minds? — hardly seems likely.

Eventually won't someone with a substantial library of fonts decide to license their fonts for web use in both TTF & EOT formats? There are one or two companies with large clone libraries I can think of that might see this as worth their while - and, in the short term at least, the first ones to jump could make substantial sales.

Either that, or a service like TypeKit might buy up or license such a font library.

- C

[cfynn]

me — “Won’t the increased licensing fees for use of fonts on these sites far outweigh decreased sales (if any) from increased piracy?”

abattis — "I don’t think so, no, and it seems almost no one does."

Since the advent of the alt.fonts.binary group on Usenet, and now with peer-to-peer file sharing, unlicensed copies of almost every digital font have been easy enough for people to obtain without paying for them. On the internet at least, substantial font piracy may be older than music piracy. It's hard to imagine how TTF / OTF embedding could make the situation substantially any worse.

People who now pay for commercial fonts will continue to pay for them. Those who don't want to pay for commercial fonts, and think they can get away using them without paying, will continue to do so - though using an unlicensed font on a web site would be pretty stupid since it is so likely you'll get found out. A few people will link/embed only FOSS fonts - and that number may grow if commercial vendors continue not to license fonts for web use, or if licensing fees are felt to be too high.

- C

[dberlowgone]

>Since @font-face is not heavily used yet (is it used at all), it is not too late to agree on supporting only EOT rather than also TTF/OTF

Do you actually think there is any way the OT format will be REMOVED by the W3C recommendation? I laugh at this ridiculous notion.

Laudable thoughts on this topic can only start with an addition to the OT format.

>since possible to customize FreeType to work well with specific devices, so its likely that “freetype is highest quality” will become a kind of urban legend...

Reword...since it is possible to customize FreeType to work well with specific fonts... and I don't live in a city.

Cheers!

[k.l.]

C.F. -- Mozilla says patented technology used in EOT is "a show stopper".

According Mr Levantovsky this is a non-argument, see his post of 25.6.2009 to the www-style list.

C.F. -- Are Safari, Opera, Mozilla going to remove support for TTF/OTF? — hardly seems likely.
D.B. -- Do you actually think there is any way the OT format will be REMOVED by the W3C recommendation? I laugh at this ridiculous notion.

Admitted.

D.B. -- Laudable thoughts on this topic can only start with an addition to the OT format.

If normal TT/OT fonts are supported too, then additional tables/data or even additional formats/wrappers are nothing but small print that nobody reads.

[Nick Shinn]

@Christopher Fynn — Shouldn’t we be talking about the licensing model not the format?

I want to see a web font format that does not allow anyone with a browser to easily download a free copy of one of my fonts used in a web site.
Although I may be able to track unauthorized use online, what particularly concerns me is offline usage, which is presently the bulk of my market.

I will aim to publish each of my typefaces in two formats: EOT (or OTW, .wtf, or whatever) and .otf, with different price points, licenses, and features--each addressing its own tranche.

[aluminum]

"I want to see a web font format that does not allow anyone with a browser to easily download a free copy of one of my fonts used in a web site."

Well, I don't think we're going to be able to reinvent the web.

Alas, that's a basic functionality of the web. We download code, images, text, and then it's stored on our machine and presented to us in the browser.

I concede that there are ways to make files harder to re-use, but I'm still not understanding why we think this is a concern, as the font files are already easily downloadable by those that want in completely unencumbered original formats.

Anyone that would be willing to spend the time fishing files out of their browser's cache would surely be the type of person that already knows how to find the original font files easily anyways, no?

[Nick Shinn]

Darrel, this was addressed by Ray Larabie in Bill's previous thread.

[aluminum]

Nick, have a link?

I know there is concern about a lack of attribution in that when using @font-face there is no indication of copyright or notice of an EULA with the font being used. I understand that argument, though I'm not sure if that's the one you are referring to.

[Nick Shinn]

http://www.typophile.com/node/58922

[aluminum]

If I understand what Ray is saying, to paraphrase, being able to grab a font via @font-face may be 'too easy' in that people won't realize it's illegal to use the font elsewhere.

I'm not convinced, though, that people that would think it's 'so easy it must be legal' would have been paying customers of that typeface otherwise.

I guess it boils down to the old issue of how many paying customers would one gain vs. how many would one lose.

[typodermic]

I don't know if this is helpful as bricks/mortar vs virtual and often not fair analogies: Let's say you two tool stores.

Tool store A has only one employee, an inattentive cashier with poor eyesight. The tools have price tags on them.

Tool store B doesn't use price tags and they leave all the tools out on the sidewalk.

It's fairly easy to steal from store A but only certain kinds of people would do that. They would use the tools with the full knowledge that they are stolen tools. In this example, the

It's just as easy to pick up tools from the sidewalk in front of Store B. Some people would assume that they're supposed to be free. There's no price tag and they're just sitting there. They might assume that it's okay to use those tools since they're not stolen . . . they were sort of found. Some people would assume the unmarked sidewalk tools belong to a store, some wouldn't.

The tools are fonts. The price tag is the EULA. I'm not saying piracy and stealing are the same thing; they're not. If somebody deliberaately took an drill from Store A without paying, we'd call them a shoplifter. If someone spotted a drill on the sidewalk with no price tag and picked it up we wouldn't call them a shoplifter.

So it's not about how many paying customers are lost to piracy. That's not the issue. Piracy can't be stopped. If people want to pirate fonts, they can pirate fonts. If you bring that into it, you're clouding the real issue which is: the difference between Store A and Store B. It's not just about how easy it is to get at the fonts. It's about the difference between having to defeat security using a font ripper browser plugin or just straight downloading from a URL.

The EULA, to me is very important. Whatever embedding solutions people come up with, that's the most important factor to me. At the very least, I deserve to be protected by a liability disclaimer, no?

[Richard Fink]

@typodermic

You've got it about right.
Now, font-makers as a group need to swiftly move towards a consensus and begin to speak - at least publicly - with one voice on this issue.
Those who don't quite understand the technical barriers to unlicensed use need to defer to trusted colleagues who do.
Just as in a labor dispute - say, the Writers Guild of America strike a few years ago that stopped TV and Film production - fragmentation is enemy number one.

(Just my humble opinion. But an informed one.)

Richard Fink

[dan_reynolds]

The Writers Guild is a union right? International screenwriters, like those who work in Britain, France, or Germany, aren't covered, I think. TV didn't stop over here in Europe when the Americans went on strike…

My point is that typeface designers, font developers, and font distributors are a diverse bunch, internationally scattered. Speaking for all of them would be difficult. There isn't a union, in the US or otherwise. The ATypI, which you might be able to call an international trade group, probably cannot speak authoritatively for all of the people who work with type worldwide, even if they would all be members (which is not the case, I suspect).

[Richard Fink]

@dan_reynolds
Everything you say is true.
And I'm not saying that everyone should unquestioningly start marching in lockstep.
But there is a common interest among all font-makers everywhere. And, if it is at all possible, from a "political" and "public relations" standpoint, a united front would be highly beneficial.
For one reason only: I think it will help bring a speedier resolution of the "problem" of web fonts to the satisfaction of most stakeholders.

Like I said, just my opinion, but it is based on a lot of hours looking at this issue unfold on a daily basis.

There is a symposium at TypeCon2009 on Sunday the 19th about web fonts. Perhaps some light will be shed there.

[aluminum]

"the difference between Store A and Store B"

B&M analogies aren't always ideal, but yours is pretty good. However, if I may, I think to fully equate the analogy to web fonts, we need a C option:

store A) commercial tools, but easy to shoplift if one desires. It's also very easy to legitimately purchase quickly and efficiently for those that like to buy their products legitimately.

store B) commercial tools, but difficult to shoplift if one desires. It's also a bit of a pain to purchase products as there are long lines, crowded parking, and that really annoying person that insists that they look in your card and put a smiley face on the receipt before you can leave since they don't trust any of their customers.

free bin C) commercial tools that have been left in boxes out behind the abandoned warehouse for anyone to take that wants them.

I think those into getting software for free for the sake of getting it for free are fully aware of location C and use that most of the time (.ru sites, any number of newsgroups or bittorrent trackers, private file sharing groups, sendspace/yousendit/megadownload/etc). Some of these folks, if they can't find the tool they want at option C will go into store A and sneak it out in their coat.

Which leaves the question: What if Store A didn't exist? What would that group of people do if option C didn't have what they want? I see a few scenarios:

1) They'd decide that it's not worth the effort to steal from store B and do nothing.

2) They'd be determined to get it anyways and do what it takes to lift it from store B.

3) They'd decide to pay money legitimately at store B.

What percentage of people that rarely if ever pay for fonts would fit into each of those 3 groups? I don't know. Does getting rid of option A turn off some legitimate purchasers who no longer will bother as they don't want to deal with the hassle of store B? I don't know that either.

"It’s about the difference between having to defeat security using a font ripper browser plugin or just straight downloading from a URL."

IMHO, I don't see a real difference there. In fact, I imagine the 'font ripper' plugin would ultimately be easier to use ('STEAL ANY FONTS ON THIS SITE' one click vs. VIEW SOURCE -> Find CSS URL -> View CSS -> find @font-face path -> Download font).

Aside from all of that, I do agree that a consensus needs to be formed sooner than later. Something that the type community can present to the W3C as their own proposal as a group.

[dan_reynolds]

I'm certainly looking forward to sitting in the audience and listening to the web fonts symposium at TypeCon. Whether or not a consensus is reached, I'm sure that it will be an eye-opening event.

[k.l.]

Irrespective of the TTF/OTF vs EOT question:
I am delighted that Mozilla 3.5 supports 'liga' and 'kern' features pretty well, even if referencing multiple lookups and even if contextual. Very good. (Safari seems to have problems here.)

Karsten

[ChrisLilley]

@k.l. You may be interested in these tests (and results for various browsers):
W3C font linking tests for International typography

For some languages, downloadable fonts are currently the only way to make readable web pages.

[k.l.]

Thanks, I didn't know this page!

[J.Montalbano]

I’m certainly looking forward to sitting in the audience and listening to the web fonts symposium at TypeCon. Whether or not a consensus is reached, I’m sure that it will be an eye-opening event.

9 panelist in one hour. I think one can pretty much guarantee no consensus will be reached.

[John Hudson]

If I go, it will be ten panelists in one hour, but I don't think consensus is the goal of the panel session. If some red flags are raised and people understand the issues, that's a good start.