Re: A New Attribute For The Font Tag In HTML 5
David Woolley <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.html.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Jace Voracek wrote: > I have recently been thinking of ways to contribute to the HTML 5.0 > Project because I have new ideas to create a better World Wide Web, and > my most recent desire for 5.0 is related to HTML Fonts. The problem I > noticed occurs when some types of computer operating systems or Web > browsers receive the NULL Square characters that occasionally appear Missing glyph. It is font dependant. Incidentally, Mozilla based browsers, on Linux, show a box with the Unicode code. > with unfamiliar fonts or that computers by default replace the font with > another font. I would like for there to be a way to load fonts from the > internet into a web page from a server. For example, we could create an Wrong list. Font downloading has been extensively discussed on [email protected] over the last fortnight. The big problem is over copyright enforcement, or lack of it. Note that IE has supported downloadable fonts for more than half a decade. > attribute to load the font from a server and display it on the web page, > therefore the user is not required to have the font saved to his/her > computer. > > For this example, I use FONTSRC as an attribute. This attribute may be > named whatever we decide to name it. > > <FONT HTML 5 does lots of things that purists dislike, but I suspect even they accept that font *elements* are only there for legacy reasons. Styling should be done with style sheets; hence the choice of list to discuss this. > FONTSRC="http://WebsiteUsedAsAnExample.Org/FontFolderLocation/UnfamiliarFont.TTF"> There was almost a consensus that deep linking fonts from third parties is likely to be least acceptable to both font vendors and those third parties. Incidentally, the HTML5 people hang on on html-public, not on www-html. -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.