[[http://www.webmonkey.com/blog/Typekit_Hopes_to_Become_the_YouTube_of_Fonts|This just in]]…
I will ftop fnoring when I read any announcement from any foundry I would buy fonts from, saying that they agree to this. THAT would be news.
Until a reputable independent type foundry announces that they're embracing one of these technologies, you can conclude it is not secure enough to be worth the risk.
Screen fonts are the red-headed stepchild of the font industry. Still.
You cannot even view an accurate sample of so-called "screen fonts" online even though Internet Explorer for many years has had the capacity via EOT and @font-face to do so without, at the same time, also handing over the entire font file in the process. (Bitmaps are horribly inaccurate for determining how a browser will actually render a font at different sizes.)
I'll be interested when Ascender/Microsoft, Adobe, and Monotype sign on to provide fonts for this.
Until then, it's smoke. And IMHO - they'll fail big time. They'll find out it's not just about obtaining license agreements and transplanting fonts designed (whether consciously or not) with print in mind and slapping them up onscreen.
The YouTube of fonts? To heck with that! I wanna be the Axl Rose of fonts. But that doesn't mean that it is going to happen :(
There are so many "solutions" to the problems of font embedding on the web. But none of them solve the actual problem. Fonts in webpages is an IP issue, not a tech one. Designers—and the people who pay designers, as well as the people who manage and distribute their work—have to want a specific solution(s) to work. Then we can play ball.
"...have to want a specific solution(s) to work. Then we can play ball."
That pretty much says it.
Show me the rule book, the umpire, the umpire's power to enforce, then throw out the first pitch.
"Show me the rule book"
"the umpire’s power to enforce"
The legal system.
"then throw out the first pitch."
Will the season ever begin?