On CHOW: Why are shopping carts so hard to steer?
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 35 of 49:
Next »
« Previous
Embedding and serving
As J.M. Galvin notes, Microsoft implemented a web font embedding technology in the late '90s, around the same time as they rolled out OpenType. It is still supported in Internet Explorer, and is called WEFT (Web Embeddable Font Technology). Microsoft Typography provides a free WEFT tool that examines your web pages and builds subsetted .eot (Embeddable OpenType) files for the fonts in use. The .eot files are not large, so I don't think connection speeds were as big an issue as J.M Galvin suggests. Around the same time as MS developed WEFT and started supporting it in IE, Netscape rolled out support for TrueDoc web font technology from Bitstream. So there were two competing web font formats, supported in different browsers, neither of them terribly attractive to users even individually let alone in non-compatible competition. So web fonts became one of the stalemates of the browser wars, and while I'm wary of some of Mr Lie's ideas and don't think he sufficiently understands the font business, I'm actually grateful to him for restarting discussion of this subject. It has been dormant for too long. It is important not to repeat the mistakes of the WEFT and TrueDoc attempts though, and I think what we learned that time around was that web fonts must be a standard, because the technology will only be embraced if it has reliable multi-browser support.

In reference to your question regarding the embedding bit and web fonts, Patrick, I think from the font foundries' perspective there is a qualitative difference between embedding a font in a document, typically for limited distribution, often within a single company -- the context in which the original TrueType embedding bit was first used -- and serving a font over the Internet. While the embedding bits may be used in this new context to provide some protection, I have seen font companies become increasingly restrictive in their embedding permissions (and in their user licenses) as the diversity and distribution of electronic documents has grown. So, ironically, I think we are in a situation where the old embedding bits are not providing the level of security that font developers would like to see in web fonts, while at the same time they are being used to restrict the kind of permissions users would like to have. It is a lose-lose situation.

Some of my colleagues, have drafted schemes for more extensive and flexible digital rights management for fonts, which would not only provide better protection for fonts but would also make it much easier for licensees to, e.g. purchase additional and specific rights to match how they intend to use the fonts. These evolving schemes have been presented at ATypI TypeTech forums and Linotype Typotechnica events, but so far the audience has been largely other font developers, many of whom are supportive of the ideas, and there has been no buy-in from the major software developers such as Microsoft and Adobe, although they have given feedback.

The OpenType format specification v1.4 is now becoming part of the mpeg-4 standard, so I see some hope for addressing font DRM through standards channels as part of a web font solution. That is a long process, I think, but I don't see a better way to a robust solution that benefits all parties.
Posted by: John Hudson   Posted on: 06/22/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

I don't like monopolies either  999ad@... | 06/19/06
why would anybody assume  not of this world | 06/20/06
Nothing to say, but I am the 1st poster! hooray!  Reverend MacFellow | 06/19/06
You got me laughing!!!  NonZealot | 06/19/06
Ummm dude...  Linux User 147560 | 06/19/06
Right. With your post appearing at #2... (NT)  Julien Collot | 06/19/06
you WOULD have been #1  ChazzMatt | 06/20/06
And reading comprehension goes down the tubes  buran | 06/20/06
Wait for it  NonZealot | 06/19/06
Mac  Ediseye | 06/19/06
who cares?  nomorems | 06/26/06
Good grief, go make a font and stop whining.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/19/06
Making them isn't the issue  Michael Kelly | 06/19/06
Wow..  Patrick Jones | 06/20/06
There was nothing but whining to understand.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/20/06
And you expect people to take you seriously?  Patrick Jones | 06/20/06
She only understands that it is against Microsoft.  B.O.F.H. | 06/20/06
whining  X41 | 06/23/06
A good deed never goes unpunished  TonyMcS | 06/19/06
Totally missed the point.  Fred Fredrickson | 06/19/06
Well Fred Isn't the Point then...  Don Bradley | 06/19/06
Yes, and no.  Fred Fredrickson | 06/23/06
Nope  TonyMcS | 06/25/06
Good grief  Fred Fredrickson | 06/26/06
There is NO issue...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/20/06
Then...  rapson | 06/20/06
not enough explanation  0369 | 06/28/06
It's evil and a monopoly because  buran | 06/20/06
Good Grief  jimk_z | 06/19/06
Some observations about fonts on the web  John Hudson | 06/19/06
Wow, someone with a clue here !  Julien Collot | 06/19/06
Question...  Patrick Jones | 06/20/06
MS actually tried to push embedding years ago  j.m.galvin | 06/20/06
Interesting...  Patrick Jones | 06/20/06
Embedding and serving  John Hudson | 06/22/06
Users to abandon Linux, MS fonts found  Boot_Agnostic | 06/20/06
And how is...  rapson | 06/20/06
The problem is..  Patrick Jones | 06/20/06
OK  rapson | 06/20/06
Monopoly..  Patrick Jones | 06/20/06
MS never had any monopoly  stevenwales | 06/20/06
No..  nomorems | 06/26/06
The real problem is that the intention of copyright laws  Update victim | 06/20/06
LAMP  hopefulcoder | 06/20/06
Ok...  Patrick Jones | 06/20/06
Don't think that's the problem  j.m.galvin | 06/20/06
Logo  Patrick Jones | 06/20/06
????  nomorems | 06/26/06
How can Microsoft enforce this policy?  HypnoToad | 06/27/06

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

SmartPlanet

Click Here