On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Apps that target IE < 9 do not use web fonts. There are so many things > that do not work in IE < 9 anyway web fonts are the least of your worries. > Even if pre-opentype ie web font support sort of looks like the same thing > with a different format, it has been out there for a decade with *nobody* > *using* *it*. > > There are *no* serious web apps written for IE < 9 and special font > formats. Webapp authors started using web fonts when the support got > available in firefox and chrome, and at that time it was already > opentype-only (woff was added later; by the time woff-compatible browsers > got widespread opentype was already supported ie-side too) > > Remember, even without @font-face the web app is not broken, the browser > will just use a local font instead Sorry, I misread the charts on caniuse.com. I thought IE 8 supported WOFF, in which case IMHO it would be worth supporting. It does not, as you point out, so I agree it's not worth supporting. I've replaced the previous webfont exception with text explicitly stating there is no exception to the standard Fedora font policy: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APatches%2FPackagingDrafts%2FWeb_Assets&diff=345116&oldid=344634 > The svg font format is incomplete, you can not display text cleanly with > it (svg fonts are shapes without hinting instructions). It is so bad it > was not considered one minute when woff was defined, even though the > people defining woff all came from free software/browser communities with > strong pro-svg biases. > > Any svg file with non-trivial text strings will use some other font > format. I doubt anything that uses "svg fonts" will use external shareable > wide-encoding files instead of embedding a dozen glyphs in a private svg > image. > > svg is a good vector image format. That does not mean it's a good font > format. Likewise, just because some exotic font format has been designed > for the web does not mean the design succeeded in producing anything worth > replacing opentype with. I guess this is really no different than PDFs. > Just because it is permitted does not mean it's a good idea. Fedora does > not implement every spec out there just because it's permitted, it > implements specs that make sense for its users. Explicitly allowing every > possible web font format without any actual proven need will just lead to > more cargo culting by webapp authors and webapp packagers since it's just > easier to dump every possible font format on the repository than analyse > whether it serves any actual purpose. -T.C. -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
