search

aliftype / xits

XITS - OpenType implementation of STIX fonts with math support
SIL Open Font License 1.1
351 stars 35 forks source link

Are there plans to release Webfont kit? #38

Closed grv87 closed 10 years ago

grv87 commented 10 years ago

Are there plans to release Webfont kit? That could include EOT, SVG and WOFF formats. And/or publish XITS and XITS Math on Google Fonts.

SIL OFL License allows conversion in WOFF under some complex conditions, but they are difficult to comply. And other formats can't be reached without change of font name.

khaledhosny commented 10 years ago

I have added WOFF files. EOT seems to be trickier since the tool I use to build EOT does not support OTF fonts neither do IE versions before IE8, so it seems we will need to convert the fonts to TTF first and this might need some testing. SVG is questionable font format and I never use it myself, not sure how relevant is it these days.

grv87 commented 10 years ago

Thanks a lot!

AFAIK, SVG is the only format supported by iPhone.

I suppose that size of fonts in SVG format would be enormously large, and so SVG format might be useless.

khaledhosny commented 10 years ago

According to http://caniuse.com/fontface, iOS > 4.1 supports other formats besides SVG, so the SVG-only iOS versions do not seem to have any significant market share.

grv87 commented 10 years ago

WOFF is enough for me at this moment. I've discovered that a lot of webkits including hosted on Google Fonts include WOFF only. Feel free to close this if you don't plan any new work concerning EOT and SVG.

khaledhosny commented 10 years ago

OK, closing.

BTW, none of the OFL difficulties for building web versions of the fonts apply to XITS as they all concern fonts that has reserved font name clause which XITS does not use, so anyone is free to create XITS derivatives (including web fonts) and keep using the name XITS for the result (STIX uses the reserved font name clause, though, so you can’t name the result STIX, but this should be obvious).

grv87 commented 10 years ago

Thanks for pointing me to the correct clarification!