Apple says Web designers can post "any font" for use with Safari.

Si_Daniels's picture

This came up at the Business of Type Event on Friday, and yes Apple font people were given a heads up...

...from the Fonts section of the main Safari page on Apple.com - http://www.apple.com/safari/

One of the biggest concerns around the Web fonts scheme is that Web designers would post commercial fonts through either ignorance or disregard of font licensing rights. Apple were aware of this (both Safari folks and Font folks) so I find it hard to understand why they’re telling web designers that they can post any font to the Web.

This is probably a break-down in communication between marketing folks and the font/browser folks, but the damage has been done – Mac World appears to have parroted the misinformation in their recent Safari review...

http://www.macworld.com/article/132708/2008/03/safari31.html

Hopefully Apple will fix this quickly, and post material that directs web designers to freeware fonts that can be used with the scheme.

Cheers, Si

Si_Daniels's picture

>Not a normal Mac OS X system font, probably installed with MS Office.

This font would be covered by the Office EULA not a Monotype stand alone license. Document embedding (as defined in the OpenType spec) is permitted, and explicitly so in the most recent version of the Office EULA...

Si_Daniels's picture

:D ?

aszszelp's picture

Was a reply to aluminum.

jdaggett's picture

This font would be covered by the Office EULA not a Monotype stand alone license.

How would a font user know that? I don't think Office ever announced that it was installing those fonts as part of the install process and the data within the font itself indicates something else (i.e. that the license is covered by the Monotype EULA)!

I'm sure you're right about this but my guess is that other applications also install fonts without explicitly altering the license notice within the name table strings. Makes it difficult to track down the EULA that actually applies. Same probably goes for all the lovely fonts that ship with Mac OS X, are they covered by the Apple EULA when the font data indicates something else? Hard to figure out from a font user's perspective.

Document embedding (as defined in the OpenType spec) is permitted…

Hmmm, are you distinguishing document embedding from a webpage's use of downloadable fonts? I know others have argued that this is really font linking rather than embedding, but I thought Microsoft claimed that the meaning of those embedding flags extended to the use of downloadable fonts in EOT form.

Ch's picture

from :

http://www.fonts.info/info/press/free-fonts-for-font-face-embedding.htm

Safari 3.1 for Windows and Mac supports the embedding of “sfnt fonts” (TrueType, OpenType PS, OpenType TT) using the font-face declaration. Technically the fonts are not embedded in the website, but they are simply linked like an image file. Thus the fonts need to be stored on a public server. Since you cannot upload commercial fonts to a public webserver, you are limited to freeware fonts. FDI fonts.info believes in the future of web fonts, so we decided to provide webdesigners with a set of high-quality web fonts supporting a wide range of character encodings.

Si_Daniels's picture

>Hmmm, are you distinguishing document embedding from a webpage’s use of downloadable fonts? I know others have argued that this is really font linking rather than embedding, but I thought Microsoft claimed that the meaning of those embedding flags extended to the use of downloadable fonts in EOT form.

Yes, my reading of the OT spec is that the embedding permissions relate to fonts being embedded within document files. With EOT the font is not within the file but is tied to it via the URL-binding system. MS consulted with the industry at the time. However, over the years many vendors have put additional restrictions in their EULAs, around commercial embedding (eBooks), and technologies they don't like, such as PDF, or more commonly EOT.

jdaggett's picture

@Ch: Wow! Nice demo page too! Shows the Safari-specific CSS styles (fill, stroke, transitions, etc.), good stuff.

Si_Daniels's picture

Happy ending - my opposite number at Apple reports that the Safari promotional pages have been updated...

http://www.apple.com/safari/

http://images.apple.com/safari/docs/Safari_Product_Overview20080602.pdf

ebensorkin's picture

Well done Si!

Thomas Phinney's picture

It might have been related to our ongoing harassment of the good folks at Apple over the past two months.

T

Si_Daniels's picture

>Well done Si!

>It might have been related to our ongoing harassment of the good folks at Apple over the past two months.

Yep, I'm sure that various people have been nagging them - and it just took a while for the bureaucratic cogs to turn.

James Arboghast's picture

Excellent. Thanks for the news Sii.

j a m e s

aszszelp's picture

Actually, I found something concerning the implementation of @font-face in Safari which might be considered a bug. However, I have not found any page on the apple homepage to report Safari bugs. Any idea where and how to report?

Szabolcs

Si_Daniels's picture

You should be able to find contact info for Dave Hyatt online - he's the Apple engineer responsible for Safari’s support for raw font downloads.

aszszelp's picture

Thanks, Si!

(I'll just have to find the time to put my observations together)

Szabolcs

guifa's picture

http://bugreport.apple.com is the preferred route especially if you have more technical details, but you can also go View->Customize Toolbar and activate the Report Bug button or (at least on a Mac), you can go to Safari->Report Bugs to Apple.

«El futuro es una línea tan fina que apenas nos damos cuenta de pintarla nosotros mismos». (La Luz Oscura, por Javier Guerrero)

aszszelp's picture

Thanks, Matthew, I just could not find that site! (I noticed the bug report form built into Safari, but it was way to generic. Also, it was so impersonal, you could never know whether the mails incoming to the mailbox from that form are not redirected directly to /dev/null ;-) )

You know, that's something I really disapprove of with Apple. Absolute intransparency. Also: even bugreport.apple.com is a) well hidden b) you need a registration (oh, the first option they offer you is 3000+ USD/year... of course, if you scroll down, you'll find the 99USDp.a. for students, and at the very bottom, as if they did not want you to notice, the free "OnLine Membership").

The stipulated aim of making everything as easy for the user as possible, "you don't have to care about technical details" is good. It should be the primary task of good USER (oriented) interface design. However, it should not completely put the user under tutelage, if he _wants_ to care for technical details.

At least in the current situation it gave me the feeling, that bug reports are actually _not_welcome_. Or why else would you make it so hard to post improvement suggestions?

Let me have been mistaken. Let me find out, I was wrong!

Szabolcs

guifa's picture

The bugreport system is open to members of Apple Developer Connection, and they do make it clear that it's free (I don't think I've had any indication to the contrary), it's designed for developers more than for end-users, because end users tend to not be able to describe in the clarity and detail that is necessary generally to diagnose problems.

They want registration for more serious natures so they can follow up. If they have a problem or a question they want a way to contact you and it integrates within their main bugtracking system for all software. I'm sure also WebKit has one as well. While I still have some bugs that have been left inattentive for 3 years, others have been rapidly fixed, and not necessarily in the order I would have thought (eg, easy things are unfixed, hard things get fixed). Partly it depends on how many people submit the same complaint.

«El futuro es una línea tan fina que apenas nos damos cuenta de pintarla nosotros mismos». (La Luz Oscura, por Javier Guerrero)

innovati's picture

back to the original topic:

Apple says you can use any font (obviously according to it's licence) but I think they refer to any type of font.

I mean, if it only supported TTF fonts what good would that be. Still according to licences, but you still wouldn't be able to use *any* font in that case, only a fraction of them.

Also like a photocopier, some photocopiers can only photocopy a small area, so a big one that says, "This photocopier can photocopy ANYTHING" doesn't mean "You are encouraged and legally entitled to duplicate material you may not otherwise have licence to distrubute as long as you use this machine!"

Give apple a break, they could easily have made their own custom font format for safari fonts only, but they didn't…

Si_Daniels's picture

I think you're reading too much into this.

Apple marketing used wording that some people in the font community objected to. They made the Apple font people aware of the issue. Apple changed the wording. End of story.

aszszelp's picture

Good to know.

As I have described above, this was the impression I got "from the outside".
So, according to you, it's worth getting into it. And I will, when I find the time (I like to do stuff either completely or not at all: no half jobs. This goes for bug reporting (being as specific, as possible, describing the problem with technical details, etc.).

Szabolcs

ralf h.'s picture

Safari bugs are not really "Apple bugs". A better place to report them is the Webkit page:
http://webkit.org/quality/reporting.html

What are the bugs?
(Can you send me an email if you don't want to describe them here?)

Ralf

aszszelp's picture

Ralf,

I wanted to write you directly anyway (in a different matter), so I will.
However let me ask, are you somehow involved in Webkit.

(--- the bug is not a rendering bug, so maybe it's not Webkit, after all... (Webkit is the name of the _rendering_ engine, isn't it?))

Szabolcs

ralf h.'s picture

Webkit is the application framework which several browsers (including) Safari are build on. Safari versions can be a little behind the current Webkit versions. So it is a good idea to check if your bugs might already fixed in the lastest nightly build of Webkit. http://nightly.webkit.org/

I have no connection to Webkit, I am just VERY interested in webfonts. ;-)

quadibloc's picture

What they intended to say was simply that standard Web formats for embedded fonts now work on Safari. The phrasing, unfortunately, could confuse some people about licensing issues, but it was clear enough to me that this wasn't what they were talking about.

Si_Daniels's picture

I don't think so, if you recall in 2008 they only supported raw TTF files, and that wasn't considered a standard web font format back then.

PS. it's always interesting what dead threads the spammers bring back to life, and even more interesting to see how people respond to them five+ years after they died. ;-)

Syndicate content Syndicate content