Le Mer 19 novembre 2008 03:29, Karl Tomlinson a écrit : > Discussion:> ---------->> Part of me would like to think that document fonts are just like> any other fonts but I think there are differences.>> * The user has control over locally installed fonts, and can set> up fontconfig rules appropriately. Document fonts change as> often as users view different documents and do not get parsed by> acceptfont/rejectfont rules.>> * Document fonts may not be what they seem.>> * The font-family descriptor may have little to do with the font> itself.>> * The document font may be a trimmed down version of the font> with only enough glyphs to display a heading, for example. Since you're looking at this, please consider: 1. it is highly possible @font-face will generate blocking extensionslike noscripts or flashblock eventually 2. there will soon be a third font category, system fonts installed ondemandhttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/AutomaticFontInstallationIt is a potential competitor of @font-face, which will work in everyapplication of the system, not just the browser. And it will keep theuser in control. However, any automated font installation system will involve aresolution and downloading step which will be more expensive than asimple local call (or a simple "download this blackbox file, trustme"), so the associated fonts probably can't be treated just as systemfonts, and apps must decide when this cost is worth it. Deciding how to priorize or even blacklist @font-face fonts, systemfonts and auto-installed fonts is going to be fun. -- Nicolas Mailhot _______________________________________________Fontconfig mailing listFontconfig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig
