Talk:Web typography

Font embedding on the Web merge proposal
Yes this should absolutely be merged. The content of Font embedding on the Web seems better written than this article so it should be preferred I think, but this article's title is more concise. ɹəə pıɔnı  02:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am of the belief that these two topics should be further defined, first. A decision on merging two topics that seem quite related, though may be as different as 'waffles' and 'small breakfast appliance distribution techniques', I think is worth considering after clear definitions of both are agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dberlow (talk • contribs) 01:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Both articles are too short, but even so, the total amount of content used to describe CSS3 web fonts well would not warrant a fully fledged article and having it as part of Font embedding on the Web would be perfectly sufficient. The current Font embedding on the Web article has more information about web fonts that the Web fonts article does as is. ɹəə pıɔnı  19:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely merge. They are almost exactly the same topic. I think web fonts has become a much more popular term since the release of Firefox 3.5, so I will merge the articles there. --  Austin512  ( talk  &bull;  contribs ) 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

✅ – {{User|Austin512), 01:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Browser support table
In section 3.3, how about redoing the table in the format of those in Comparison of layout engines (Scalable Vector Graphics)? That way, the version numbers can be kept for each technology, and new rows/columns can be added as needed without the thing getting hard to read... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.60 (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ --  Austin512  ( talk  &bull;  contribs ) 18:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a clarification, if anyone knows. Does Opera 10 really support embedded fonts, multiple font files, as in bold, italic from the same family, or just a single font file for each 'family' name? Is everyone sure that Opera 10 supports embedded fonts like Mozilla and Webkit do? It shows support in the table, but could that be misleading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.55.171.177 (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm unable to get .svg fonts working for versions prior to Opera 10 (using @font-face). Possible typo in the support table? --Nicoon (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding SVG
Regarding SVG, shouldn't it also be clarified that fonts for SVG apply only to their use within SVG graphics - not to the text of the page as the other mentioned font formats apply? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gthiruva (talk • contribs) 23:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can apply SVG fonts to HTML pages just fine. ɹəə pıɔnı  13:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

inaccurate sIfr criticism
"The downside to this method is that the tools needed to create sIFR files are generally not readily available for free." => Not true, as the free, open-source Flex SDK allows anyone to create SWF files that embed font assets. In the same veing, blogs like http://nexus.zteo.com/2007/05/18/create-your-own-sifr-flash-files-2/ document more free tools to build sIfr font files.

I don't feel like summarily deleting a sentence from an IP, but someone who cares probably should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.113.5 (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as it includes that "generally", it's accurate. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Two unrelated points
1) I'm unhappy with the leader text - it seems to be rewriting history so that Microsoft invented and then popularized everything, when in fact they did their best to confuse people and decelerate the process, and continue to do so.

2) In section 2.2, should we say something about the size of font files? For example, the point of embedding/downloading fonts is to save on bandwidth, and yet the word "compress*" only appears on the page twice. I've also noticed that SVG fonts tend to come out much larger than their original TTFs, etc. I think this should be a more comprehensive compare/contrast exercise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.50 (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Cufon
There should be at least a reference to Cufon. Cufon is a Javascript font rendering engine, similar to sIFR, that styles text using font outlines that are encoded as Javascript data. It uses VML and the CANVAS tag to create drawing regions, and draws the glyphs into the regions. http://wiki.github.com/sorccu/cufon/about —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnk12 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We don’t even have an article on it, and it was arguably irrelevant before it was even created (because all relevant browsers adopted  support before it existed). It’s mentioned at the sIFR article, which seems like enough. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

But plenty of fonts are available to be downloaded freely...
The article overall seems to dismiss downloadable fonts on various grounds of legality... but while sure, the commercial foundries make various claims about it being "illegal" ... that should not be to say that all downloadable fonts are illegal.

If a foundry prohibits use of their font online, fine, it can't be used. But if a free, open-source font is used, there's no legal reason not to use it in web typography.

Shouldn't the article therefore focus more on the ways in which downloadable fonts *can* be used than on the ways in which it *can't*? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.177.129 (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody yet seems to have written about using W3C CSS3 @fonts, and web fonts such as Google web fonts, fonts.com web fonts and the like. LittleBen (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As to any bias, please be specific so we don’t have to read your mind, or just attempt to fix it yourself (this bit goes for google/fonts.com, too). ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Available by default on the Windows platform
The article talks about two fonts that are "available by default on the Windows platform", without saying in which version of "the Windows platform" they became available.

For example, were Arial Unicode MS and Lucida Sans Unicode both available on Windows 95? -- pne (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You can find this information in List of Microsoft Windows fonts. More information is available by Googling for "web-safe font stacks". See also the question about downloadable fonts above. LittleBen (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Icon fonts
Something should be said about the practice of creating a web font so that frequently used icons are represented as characters. --Error (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Web typography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100322235842/http://www.typography.com:80/ask/faq.php#Ft_9 to http://typography.com/ask/faq.php#Ft_10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Newly Available Fonts As Of January, 2020
Does anyone know if the fonts that have been more recently invented as of January, 2020 are the new normal for Web typography; or if traditional Web typography will continue to stay for years to come.

I, personally like the traditional Web typography much better.

January 16, 2020

Wiki Education assignment: Graphic Design History
— Assignment last updated by Ktrachsel01 (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)