<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: the potential of web typography</title>
	<atom:link href="http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:59:58 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: stk</title>
		<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/comment-page-1/#comment-14641</link>
		<dc:creator>stk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 07:54:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=1000#comment-14641</guid>
		<description>@Matthew ... this page works fine in my winFireFox3.5.2 ... dunno what the problem might be</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Matthew &#8230; this page works fine in my winFireFox3.5.2 &#8230; dunno what the problem might be</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vivian</title>
		<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/comment-page-1/#comment-14611</link>
		<dc:creator>Vivian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:17:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=1000#comment-14611</guid>
		<description>As exciting as this is, I can&#039;t help but have some fears about @font-face leading to a lot of ugly typography on the internet. 

Hopefully it will make the internet a more beautiful place, and not like a bunch of designers got drunk on the punch and barfed fonts everywhere.

My full blog post: http://blog.twg.ca/2009/09/4-fears-of-font-face/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As exciting as this is, I can&#8217;t help but have some fears about @font-face leading to a lot of ugly typography on the internet. </p>
<p>Hopefully it will make the internet a more beautiful place, and not like a bunch of designers got drunk on the punch and barfed fonts everywhere.</p>
<p>My full blog post: <a href="http://blog.twg.ca/2009/09/4-fears-of-font-face/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.twg.ca/2009/09/4-fears-of-font-face/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew</title>
		<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/comment-page-1/#comment-14264</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:41:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=1000#comment-14264</guid>
		<description>Thank you for sharing this demo. I noticed your demo page works just fine on a Mac with FF 3.5.2, but does not work at all in Windows with FF 3.5.2. Both browsers allow pages to choose their own fonts. Any thoughts?

Kind regards,
Matthew</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for sharing this demo. I noticed your demo page works just fine on a Mac with FF 3.5.2, but does not work at all in Windows with FF 3.5.2. Both browsers allow pages to choose their own fonts. Any thoughts?</p>
<p>Kind regards,<br />
Matthew</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stk</title>
		<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/comment-page-1/#comment-2095</link>
		<dc:creator>stk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:49:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=1000#comment-2095</guid>
		<description>I found this article exciting.  I went on to experiment (and succeed) with cross-browser font embedding and &lt;a href=&quot;http://randsco.com/index.php/2009/07/04/cross_browser_font_embedding&quot; title=&quot; x-Browser Font Embedding &quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;created a tutorial&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt; for anyone interested in embedding fancy fonts in their web pages.

Bottom line:  With FFx&#039;s support of @font-face, it&#039;s now possible for cross-browser font embedding with FFx, Safari, IE6, IE7 and IE8 (and purportedly Opera v10 &amp; Google Chrome following soon).

&lt;strong&gt;My observation:&lt;/strong&gt; Of all the user agents that render embedded fonts, FireFox is the &lt;em&gt;only one&lt;/em&gt; that shows a perceptible delay, when loading a page containing embedded fonts (i.e., page initially renders with - assume &quot;the default&quot; fonts - then re-renders and &quot;flashes&quot;, loading the embedded fonts).

This text-replacement re-rendering is most annoying and I&#039;m wondering if there is way for FireFox to remedy this, as other user agents seem to have accomplished?

(Behavior noted in FireFox for both on my &quot;x-Browser Fonts&quot; article and the &quot;Potential of Web Typography&quot; article).

Cheers,
-stk</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I found this article exciting.  I went on to experiment (and succeed) with cross-browser font embedding and <a href="http://randsco.com/index.php/2009/07/04/cross_browser_font_embedding" title=" x-Browser Font Embedding " rel="nofollow"><strong>created a tutorial</strong></a> for anyone interested in embedding fancy fonts in their web pages.</p>
<p>Bottom line:  With FFx&#8217;s support of @font-face, it&#8217;s now possible for cross-browser font embedding with FFx, Safari, IE6, IE7 and IE8 (and purportedly Opera v10 &amp; Google Chrome following soon).</p>
<p><strong>My observation:</strong> Of all the user agents that render embedded fonts, FireFox is the <em>only one</em> that shows a perceptible delay, when loading a page containing embedded fonts (i.e., page initially renders with &#8211; assume &#8220;the default&#8221; fonts &#8211; then re-renders and &#8220;flashes&#8221;, loading the embedded fonts).</p>
<p>This text-replacement re-rendering is most annoying and I&#8217;m wondering if there is way for FireFox to remedy this, as other user agents seem to have accomplished?</p>
<p>(Behavior noted in FireFox for both on my &#8220;x-Browser Fonts&#8221; article and the &#8220;Potential of Web Typography&#8221; article).</p>
<p>Cheers,<br />
-stk</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ugh</title>
		<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/comment-page-1/#comment-2008</link>
		<dc:creator>ugh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:32:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=1000#comment-2008</guid>
		<description>Ugh, putting us all at the whim of tasteless &quot;designers&quot; the world over. I will continue to browse with &quot;Allow pages to choose their own fonts&quot; OFF, thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ugh, putting us all at the whim of tasteless &#8220;designers&#8221; the world over. I will continue to browse with &#8220;Allow pages to choose their own fonts&#8221; OFF, thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Koolwriting.com</title>
		<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/comment-page-1/#comment-1906</link>
		<dc:creator>Koolwriting.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:37:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=1000#comment-1906</guid>
		<description>It won&#039;t catch on as well (virally) if we can&#039;t use it inline.  Does it work inline too, like with a &quot;span&quot; tag?  

For example, let&#039;s say someone wants &quot;kool&quot; symbols of cats, dogs, whatever.  People will use this if I can say, &quot;Here, cut and paste this one line of code.&quot;  

But if trying new fonts requires connecting &quot;style&quot; references in disparate sections of code, this confuses people, and you won&#039;t see as much adoption, creative implementation by non-specialists.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It won&#8217;t catch on as well (virally) if we can&#8217;t use it inline.  Does it work inline too, like with a &#8220;span&#8221; tag?  </p>
<p>For example, let&#8217;s say someone wants &#8220;kool&#8221; symbols of cats, dogs, whatever.  People will use this if I can say, &#8220;Here, cut and paste this one line of code.&#8221;  </p>
<p>But if trying new fonts requires connecting &#8220;style&#8221; references in disparate sections of code, this confuses people, and you won&#8217;t see as much adoption, creative implementation by non-specialists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marcelo Cantos</title>
		<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/comment-page-1/#comment-1619</link>
		<dc:creator>Marcelo Cantos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:57:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=1000#comment-1619</guid>
		<description>Correction: the other major sticking point is that end-users can still pilfer legitimately-licensed fonts from a web site and use them in offline materials that aren&#039;t subject to browser-reporting. This leaves us back in the tarpit of conventional DRM.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Correction: the other major sticking point is that end-users can still pilfer legitimately-licensed fonts from a web site and use them in offline materials that aren&#8217;t subject to browser-reporting. This leaves us back in the tarpit of conventional DRM.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marcelo Cantos</title>
		<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/comment-page-1/#comment-1618</link>
		<dc:creator>Marcelo Cantos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:43:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=1000#comment-1618</guid>
		<description>[I don&#039;t work in this area, so please accept my apologies for taking up everyone&#039;s time if my wonderful &quot;new&quot; idea turns out to be as old as the hills.]

WRT licensing, the problem here is different to the one DRM usually tries to solve. Normally, DRM locks out the end-user from experiencing content they have sought and acquired, but haven&#039;t gained the rights to experience. In this case, however, it is a class of content providers (web sites) that need to be controlled, with end-users invariably becoming unwitting cohorts. Perhaps a different solution is possible in this circumstance...

Designers could digitally sign and license font files on a per-web-site basis. Most web browsers would refuse to load incorrectly licensed font-files, and report the &quot;fingerprint&quot; of unlicensed font-files to a monitoring agency (mostly just a database that maps each licensed fingerprint to an owner/email). Of course, reporting would be at the users discretion, so designers working on and testing fonts could opt out, and maybe even store the fingerprint as &quot;trusted&quot;. Web sites, however, would lack the ability to control reporting, and would thus expose themselves to copyright infringement charges. The fingerprint could also serve to prevent a designer from defrauding another designer by acquiring digital signing rights for someone else&#039;s font.

The only real sticking point is developing a robust fingerprinting method that survives font-tweaking by infringers. Some method that allows partial fingerprint matching and forces the infringer to materially alter the appearance of the font would be ideal. Normal digital &quot;fingerprints&quot; such as SHA-1 wouldn&#039;t do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[I don't work in this area, so please accept my apologies for taking up everyone's time if my wonderful "new" idea turns out to be as old as the hills.]</p>
<p>WRT licensing, the problem here is different to the one DRM usually tries to solve. Normally, DRM locks out the end-user from experiencing content they have sought and acquired, but haven&#8217;t gained the rights to experience. In this case, however, it is a class of content providers (web sites) that need to be controlled, with end-users invariably becoming unwitting cohorts. Perhaps a different solution is possible in this circumstance&#8230;</p>
<p>Designers could digitally sign and license font files on a per-web-site basis. Most web browsers would refuse to load incorrectly licensed font-files, and report the &#8220;fingerprint&#8221; of unlicensed font-files to a monitoring agency (mostly just a database that maps each licensed fingerprint to an owner/email). Of course, reporting would be at the users discretion, so designers working on and testing fonts could opt out, and maybe even store the fingerprint as &#8220;trusted&#8221;. Web sites, however, would lack the ability to control reporting, and would thus expose themselves to copyright infringement charges. The fingerprint could also serve to prevent a designer from defrauding another designer by acquiring digital signing rights for someone else&#8217;s font.</p>
<p>The only real sticking point is developing a robust fingerprinting method that survives font-tweaking by infringers. Some method that allows partial fingerprint matching and forces the infringer to materially alter the appearance of the font would be ideal. Normal digital &#8220;fingerprints&#8221; such as SHA-1 wouldn&#8217;t do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Drinkwater</title>
		<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/comment-page-1/#comment-1389</link>
		<dc:creator>John Drinkwater</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:56:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=1000#comment-1389</guid>
		<description>If you want to create custom glyphs for presentation, put them into the unicode private use block range so they dont clash with anything else on the planet…</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you want to create custom glyphs for presentation, put them into the unicode private use block range so they dont clash with anything else on the planet…</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chaac</title>
		<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/comment-page-1/#comment-1326</link>
		<dc:creator>Chaac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:26:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=1000#comment-1326</guid>
		<description>@Craig Mod:
I have seen the baseline grid on both and I see the very small difference you mention. That&#039;s it? It think the difference is too subtle to state only one browser renders &quot;as intended&quot;. I think both browsers do show &quot;The potential of web typography&quot; quite nicely.

Greetings.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Craig Mod:<br />
I have seen the baseline grid on both and I see the very small difference you mention. That&#8217;s it? It think the difference is too subtle to state only one browser renders &#8220;as intended&#8221;. I think both browsers do show &#8220;The potential of web typography&#8221; quite nicely.</p>
<p>Greetings.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig Mod</title>
		<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/comment-page-1/#comment-1322</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig Mod</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:15:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=1000#comment-1322</guid>
		<description>@Chaac:

Thanks for posting this screenshot. It&#039;s subtle, but there is at least one difference: Safari&#039;s interpretation of the margins / line-height of the drop-cap-glyphs. If you press &#039;b&#039; on the page to turn on the baseline grid, the difference between the Firefox and Safari versions becomes much clearer. 

Best,
C</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Chaac:</p>
<p>Thanks for posting this screenshot. It&#8217;s subtle, but there is at least one difference: Safari&#8217;s interpretation of the margins / line-height of the drop-cap-glyphs. If you press &#8216;b&#8217; on the page to turn on the baseline grid, the difference between the Firefox and Safari versions becomes much clearer. </p>
<p>Best,<br />
C</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chaac</title>
		<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/comment-page-1/#comment-1292</link>
		<dc:creator>Chaac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:50:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=1000#comment-1292</guid>
		<description>I can&#039;t seem to find ANY difference between the way Firefox and Safari render fonts in the demo. I uploaded a file to my server so you can see it for yourself: http://www.hclientes.com/font-face.png

(Safari 4 on the left, Firefox 3.5 on the right)

If you see any difference, please post.

Greetings.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#8217;t seem to find ANY difference between the way Firefox and Safari render fonts in the demo. I uploaded a file to my server so you can see it for yourself: <a href="http://www.hclientes.com/font-face.png" rel="nofollow">http://www.hclientes.com/font-face.png</a></p>
<p>(Safari 4 on the left, Firefox 3.5 on the right)</p>
<p>If you see any difference, please post.</p>
<p>Greetings.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel</title>
		<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/comment-page-1/#comment-1222</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:40:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=1000#comment-1222</guid>
		<description>Lauren: pressing D, B and G on the website will toggle a few fancy features. Thus, when pressing Cmd-D, you&#039;re toggling the text shadow.

Which leads me to an important rule they ignored: when performing keyboard handling, always check for modifier keys. Drop shadow shouldn&#039;t toggle when the user wants to favorite your website, your numbers-only field shouldn&#039;t block the user from pressing Ctrl-A, and so on.

Also: if you plan to use custom fonts, &lt;em&gt;please&lt;/em&gt; use font-size-adjust. Watching the text jumping around when the new fonts load is very, very annoying.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lauren: pressing D, B and G on the website will toggle a few fancy features. Thus, when pressing Cmd-D, you&#8217;re toggling the text shadow.</p>
<p>Which leads me to an important rule they ignored: when performing keyboard handling, always check for modifier keys. Drop shadow shouldn&#8217;t toggle when the user wants to favorite your website, your numbers-only field shouldn&#8217;t block the user from pressing Ctrl-A, and so on.</p>
<p>Also: if you plan to use custom fonts, <em>please</em> use font-size-adjust. Watching the text jumping around when the new fonts load is very, very annoying.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mozilla releases Firefox 3.5 - Programming Blog</title>
		<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/comment-page-1/#comment-1184</link>
		<dc:creator>Mozilla releases Firefox 3.5 - Programming Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:58:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=1000#comment-1184</guid>
		<description>[...] Docs; the ability to show video built into Web pages without plug-ins; a private browsing mode; fancy downloadable fonts; and geolocation technology that can let Web sites know where you [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Docs; the ability to show video built into Web pages without plug-ins; a private browsing mode; fancy downloadable fonts; and geolocation technology that can let Web sites know where you [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lauren W.</title>
		<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/comment-page-1/#comment-1173</link>
		<dc:creator>Lauren W.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:56:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=1000#comment-1173</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not terribly web-savvy, but as a designer this is very exciting. 

Also, I updated to 3.5 to view the @font-face article correctly, and noticed that when I hit cmd+D to bookmark it, all of the text took on a shadow. It didn&#039;t go away until I hit cmd+D again. I&#039;ve never seen this happen before. It actually looks pretty cool, but what&#039;s the story here?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not terribly web-savvy, but as a designer this is very exciting. </p>
<p>Also, I updated to 3.5 to view the @font-face article correctly, and noticed that when I hit cmd+D to bookmark it, all of the text took on a shadow. It didn&#8217;t go away until I hit cmd+D again. I&#8217;ve never seen this happen before. It actually looks pretty cool, but what&#8217;s the story here?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Firefox 3.5, or how I spent my day &#124; The Church of Jesus Christ</title>
		<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/comment-page-1/#comment-1153</link>
		<dc:creator>Firefox 3.5, or how I spent my day &#124; The Church of Jesus Christ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:42:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=1000#comment-1153</guid>
		<description>[...] Docs; the ability to show video built into Web pages without plug-ins; a private browsing mode; fancy downloadable fonts; and geolocation technology that can let Web sites know where you [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Docs; the ability to show video built into Web pages without plug-ins; a private browsing mode; fancy downloadable fonts; and geolocation technology that can let Web sites know where you [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: elmimmo</title>
		<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/comment-page-1/#comment-1138</link>
		<dc:creator>elmimmo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:09:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=1000#comment-1138</guid>
		<description>There is the issue about file size. CJK fonts tend to be huge. Microsoft&#039;s WEFT could scan a page and create a new font file (although in their own &quot;font object&quot; format) stripping all unnecessary glyphs for that particular page.

I think that was a neat idea.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is the issue about file size. CJK fonts tend to be huge. Microsoft&#8217;s WEFT could scan a page and create a new font file (although in their own &#8220;font object&#8221; format) stripping all unnecessary glyphs for that particular page.</p>
<p>I think that was a neat idea.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Firefox 3.5 Is Now Available. Here&#8217;s What It Can Do. - Gadgetwise Blog - NYTimes.com</title>
		<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/comment-page-1/#comment-1127</link>
		<dc:creator>Firefox 3.5 Is Now Available. Here&#8217;s What It Can Do. - Gadgetwise Blog - NYTimes.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:33:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=1000#comment-1127</guid>
		<description>[...] any performance problems you may be experiencing&#8211;and tell us which features (downloadable fonts, perhaps?) you like [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] any performance problems you may be experiencing&#8211;and tell us which features (downloadable fonts, perhaps?) you like [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ricardo Esteves</title>
		<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/comment-page-1/#comment-1120</link>
		<dc:creator>Ricardo Esteves</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:25:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=1000#comment-1120</guid>
		<description>There&#039;s an issue that i&#039;d like to have a better understanding. How can @fontface help web designers to build a web with more typographic richness, without exposing commercial font files for everybody&#039;s download (piracy)?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s an issue that i&#8217;d like to have a better understanding. How can @fontface help web designers to build a web with more typographic richness, without exposing commercial font files for everybody&#8217;s download (piracy)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gérard Talbot</title>
		<link>http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/06/web-typography/comment-page-1/#comment-1109</link>
		<dc:creator>Gérard Talbot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:49:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hacks.mozilla.org/?p=1000#comment-1109</guid>
		<description>Hello all,

There is a malformed URI reference in the demo at line 49:

a href=&quot;http://github.com/blog/363-cufón-a-sifr-alternative&quot; Cufon /a

The o with acute accent should be escaped: %F3 is the correct way to do this.

HTML 4.01, section B.2.1 Non-ASCII characters in URI attribute values
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#non-ascii-chars

regards, Gérard</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello all,</p>
<p>There is a malformed URI reference in the demo at line 49:</p>
<p>a href=&#8221;http://github.com/blog/363-cufón-a-sifr-alternative&#8221; Cufon /a</p>
<p>The o with acute accent should be escaped: %F3 is the correct way to do this.</p>
<p>HTML 4.01, section B.2.1 Non-ASCII characters in URI attribute values<br />
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#non-ascii-chars" rel="nofollow">http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#non-ascii-chars</a></p>
<p>regards, Gérard</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
