Maybe autohinting ain't so bad after all?

I was surprised after taking a superficial look at the Adobe fonts on Typekit. They appear to be autohinted TTFs converted from CFF by FontForge.

Considering the perceived tone on the TypeCon's webfont panel about how bad-for-the-industry autohinting is, has even Adobe accepted that this is "good enough" and not worth the time and money to build by hand?

Webfonts: Do any browsers support printing them?

My question is about linked webfonts, (not the web-safe installed fonts like Georgia & Verdana). Is it possible to print using them from a browser? I heard Firefox was going to implement this, but have not seen it work yet. Was that functionality intended for naked font linking only (.otf & .ttf but not .woff) or a rumor wholly unfounded?

My new blog: Hot Lead

I just put up the first post of my new blog: Hot Lead. The first one is a little light and breezy, but I plan to get into a lot more detail about what we're doing with the Google Font API, open source fonts, performance, rendering, font technology, and more. Please subscribe and wait for updates.

We had a great launch, and I'm still recovering a bit from all the excitement - and definitely looking forward to relaxing a bit this holiday wekeend. Again, thanks to everyone here at Typophile for supporting the effort in many different ways.

Webfont Obfuscation: An interim solution?

While we are waiting for WOFF support broadly, there are some protective measures available for webfonts to prevent them from being installed locally.

There is a technique of obfuscating the name table, rendering it unusable as a system font, but fully functional as a webfont. Ethan Dunham of Font Squirrel and Fontspring has led much of the research below, based on some prior work from Peter Bilak of Typotheque and Philip Taylor with his Font Optimizer [0]

Specifically, these are the modifications for a TrueType font:

WOFF submission accepted/published by W3C

In the latest development of web served typography, the World Wide Web Consortium today accepted and published the Web Open Font Format specification. This is an important step in the standardisation of this format, as set out in the charter of the recently establish W3C web font working group.

The most notable and exciting thing about this is that WOFF was jointly submitted to the W3C by the Mozilla Foundation (whose Jonathan Kew developed the format along with Erik van Blokland and Tal Lemming), Opera Software ASA, and Microsoft Corporation. And it isn't often that I use bold italics.

1. The submission documentation.

Cufon vs. WOFF

Would like to get some professional opinions on Cufón. Specifically, I'm wondering if you see it in a similar light as WOFF. IE: It is a web-only format and can't be installed on a desktop machine. I'm starting to see some designers offering Cufón support in their pro licenses.

So, would you equate the two to be similar? Can you see any downside to Cufón from an IP perspective?

The only downside I can see, is that 1) It is a text format and therefore easy to edit out domain links. 2) It is easily downloaded and installed on your own website. But it is impossible (from what I can tell) to turn back into an OTF. I can already turn a WOFF back into an OTF.

Why or why don't you support Cufón?

Web fonts - foundries allowing sIFR, FLIR, cufón, @font-face, etc.


is anywhere a table showing which foundry supports and allows which webfont technology? I couldn't really find anything close to what I mean, so I put together quickly this draft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pepa007/Foundries_allowing_web_fonts

Is there something like this already? Or should I publish it and kindly ask you to help me with adding more foundries?

Thank you