Web fonts with CSS @font-face
The "How to use for a web site?" FAQ is very outdated. It says CSS @font-face is supported "only under IE", which was true a few years ago, but today it's now supported under every major browser. Are there any plans to work with @font-face on dafont.com? Specifically, including CSS with @font-face rules for each format, and a JSON or XML API would be useful.
Nowdays @font-face works with all common browsers - provided you use the correct coding. I do not understand what you mean with "Are there any plans to work with @font-face on dafont.com?". Why would dafont do so? What would it add?
Here are some concrete steps I'd like to see dafont.com take regarding @font-face:
1) Update the FAQ to stop encouraging fonts in images as the best way to use fonts on the web. That is simply bad advice.
2) Include CSS with each font, either submitted by the author, or preferably auto-generated from the uploaded font files.
3) Provider a web API (preferably JSON) for getting information on fonts, including name, weight, style, and download URL.
This isn't a new idea. Am I really the first person to make this suggestion? All of these sites already do this:
As you can see in the provided links above, this use of a typeface requires specific licence for web usage. They are mostly not free except the google webfonts that use specific fonts where the license let us use it for web usage. The fontsquirrel @fontface generator is, i think, almost illegal as you can upload your own fonts to generate the @fontface kit, which doesn't mean you acquired the license for web usage.
So it CAN'T be auto-generated, this is case by case.
Why the hell do you want an API for ? I mean what would you do with that ?
The FAQ is outdated, i agree and the chapter on the @fontface should be updated but using images (manually or dynamically generated) is still the most common and easy way to do for the average user.
Anyway, you're talking about stuffs 95% of the visitors of dafont doesn't even heard a single time. It's mostly home use (see the number of topics that contain the word "photofiltre"
) or professional print use. You already know what you're talking about, every web professional will know and doesn't need dafont for this.
I might be wrong, but this is not the public target of dafont.
Edited on Jan 25, 2011 at 15:11 by vinz
Licensing is a concern, but it's a concern every other web font provider has dealt with, and dafont.com could easily deal with. Every font on dafont.com has a license attached, one of which is public domain, which certainly permits website use.
I would use an API for the same reasons many people use those other web font APIs. Again, this isn't a new idea.
I really didn't expect such an antagonistic response here. I'll take that as a "no" and move on.
I'm not a dafont administrator, i'm not anwsering for them.
I still don't get your API shit, but you're better than everyone so don't bother explaining.
I'm just giving you my point of view, i think the @fontface shit doesn't hit the big target on this website.
So take it as you wish and go wherever you want... I don't care !
scottr is right, downloading a CSS file is now common with fonts.
but i'm not really sure that the other font providers even thought about sending an email to ask the authors about the license problem.
but vinz is also right when he says most dafont visitors don't know what it's about, as a lot of people don't even know how to install a font.
Quite a lot even don't know what a font is ...
Actually font squirrel doesn't allow you to create webkits that are illegal. On a personal note, I find it pretty annoying that Adobe supplies fonts with their programs, but when you do a Photoshop mockup you can't even use the same fonts that Adobe provided you with, because font-squirrel won't convert them for web usage...
it is all in the settings ...
Cufon is also good to use.
All times are CEST. The time is now 10:59