Stakeholders & Browser Support
In my last entry I gave you a overview of the state of fonts on the web and the division that has formed between two competing formats—OpenType vs. EOT. Today I will give you a snapshot of the positions of the major stakeholders on this ongoing debate so you can understand motivations of everyone involved and the complexity of the problem.
Microsoft
Microsoft has had a mechanism for embedding fonts in IE since the first W3C Recommendation for CSS level 2 in 1998. At that time, they introduced the Embedded OpenType format which they have supported for the past decade. Hooray Microsoft. However the format was never supported by other browsers because it is based on proprietary technology. As a result it has never been widely used by designers and developers. Boo Microsoft.
Microsoft has changed a bit since 1998—slowly becoming a more open and forward thinking company. In March 2008, after seeing several browsers offer support to direct linking to OpenType, Microsoft decided to offer EOT to the other browsers as a proposed web standard.
One of the advantages of EOT for font vendors and companies that own the exclusive rights to typefaces is that it offers two way binding—a form of DRM. The use of the font can be limited to one domain. This ensures that other sites can’t link to the font and use it without a license.
Microsoft has said that it is impossible for them to support direct linking to OpenType as long as font vendors oppose it. And why would they? In addition to trying to maintain a good relationship with font foundries, they own a substantial library of fonts that is in their best interest to protect.
Opera, Safari & Mozilla
The other major browsers have declared their support for direct linking to OpenType. They don’t want to give Microsoft a competitive advantage by accepting EOT as a standard. Bert Bos, summarizes it best with his W3C report on embedded fonts:
Mozilla has stated that they don’t want EOT. But they are not opposed to letting the browser check the license, as evidenced by the proposal to let HTTP headers carry license data.
Apple’s Safari has implemented font download with no checking of licenses. They said they are against EOT, but would not be against browsers checking licenses, e.g., using Mozilla’s proposal.
Opera remarked that there are more existing and announced implementations for downloading native OpenType than for EOT. They conclude that the market apparently doesn’t need EOT and thus they see no need to support it themselves either. W3C’s limited resources should be spend on more important standards.
Font Vendors & Foundries
Thankfully, the font vendors are getting their act together. I only wish they had started a decade ago. In general the font vendors are in support of EOT and similar solutions, including EOT Lite or wrapper solutions like .webfont. They are looking for an option that prevents casual piracy of their typefaces with at minimum some layer of obfuscation; for example a new font extension that can’t be installed on your computer. Most font developers believe that without this obfuscation web developers will not understand that they can’t just copy their workstation fonts to the web.
I’ve really only skimmed the surface of this debate. If you’d like to learn more I highly recommend checking out this audio stream from TypeCon2009. On July 19, 2009 eleven panelist from the type community went on stage in Atlana to discuss the issues of web fonts and licensing fonts for the web. The following is the audio from the event (feel free to skip that first minute of jazz):
The Web Fonts Series
- Part 1: An Overview of Font Embedding, Font Linking, & the Current State of Fonts on the Web
- Part 2: Stakeholders & Browser Support
- Part 3: Technical Hurdles
- Part 4: The W3C Fonts Working Group
- Part 5: Fonts Now!
Tags: web-fonts
One Response to “Web Fonts – Part 2”
Leave a comment