Good evening.

For the time being I only embed OFL-fonts in my Web-projects, mostly ttf, some otf. Never WOFF nor WOFF2.

A font author's agreement to this practice is explicitly given, when the font is licensed under the conditions of the OFL. Many fonts, and even some of high quality, that I find on dafont are just “gratuitous”. Neither for these, nor for fonts published under GPL, we can offhand assume that the author authorizes embedding.

I cannot know if the dafont team is willing to invest time and effort into a modification for more clarity. And I cannot know by which ways a font author's work arrived in the dafont base. In my opinion, the question “Do you allow embedding of your font?” should explicitly be answered by a font author who does not want the OFL. And the dafont site should notify about the possibility or impossibility to embed a font, when it is not an OFL-font.

I know that I can contact the font author directly and I already did that. Imagine the flood of questions, when Web-designers become implicitly honest...

This improves the quality of the search results. Thank you.

The sharp s (ß) is however not always present in the fonts found in this way and there are false positives, like Hugolers. This is just for the record.

Good afternoon.


I so want to believe you, but I cannot see that button, nor the label “more options”. Screen shot: https://pic.infini.fr/D9rx0fHe/SCj4Bp7S.avif

Thank you for your reaction.

Good morning.

It is quite cumbersome to find on dafont.com a font that contains essential glyphs. But it should not be too difficult to give a stored font an additional attribute like
complete, almost complete, lacking glyphs.

Or just its usability in a specific language system. This is really lacking.

Also, fonts resembling the humanist font face of the Linux-Libertine foundation (Biolinum) should have their own category.

I like many of the fonts you find here, but cannot use them, because they do just not provide the necessary letters. Searches are a chore right now.