Vernon, I think we're already there. Modern web servers do a great job of serving font files just as they do a great job of serving image files, javascript files, html files, and css files. From my perspective, treating one kind of web-delivered asset differently than others introduces an unnecessary level of complexity across the entire design/development/deployment process. This is why I see libre fonts as the only opportunity for sustained growth and innovation for typography. Everything else restricts in too many unintended ways.
----------------------- Garrick van Buren http://garrickvanburen.com 612 325 9110 ----------------------- On Oct 29, 2013, at 4:25 PM, vernon adams wrote: > I think you are right. > Imo the web would be much more robust and fertile if type was even more > ‘democratised’ and ‘autonomous’. The big web companies would be much better > served by a few big font servers amid swarms of small font servers. Repeating > myself, i know, :) but if webfont servers could be as commonplace and as easy > to use as all those zillions of Wordpress installations across the web… it > would be awesome. > > -v > > > On 29 Oct 2013, at 12:23, Garrick van Buren <garr...@kernest.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:19 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: >>> >>> This is why Google Fonts is better than self hosting. Its likely >>> you've already cached the most popular Google Fonts. >> >> >> Sure, that's the argument for linking to any of Google-hosted resources >> (jQuery, etc). >> >> Personally, I feel this approach make the web more fragile, masks the >> approachability of HTML/CSS, and introduces privacy concerns. >> >
