Coffeehouse Thread

17 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Do you think FF would ever support WEFT?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    jamie

    I wish they would.

    I finally opened FF to see if my blog even displayed and was quite suprised that it rendered everything correctly. 

    The only stuff missing was WEFT (for seeing fonts) and if i wanted to get picky - the cursor control on the main top toolbar (shows a text cursor - ie shows hand cursor)

    But all the mouseovers - up - down off worked
    The layers - most everything - I was quite impressed.

    Seeing as FF is OSS - MS weft is a pretty easy way to use any font on the web ( I know netscape uses some other format but I couldnt figure it out - and IE doesnt support it.  Sorry but that's still 90% users.

    Here's hoping that if there is one MS based thing FF might consider supporting - it would be WEFT

    ( if they did i could justify using WEFT for clients - woohoo - every font in the world comes to the web!)

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    What exactly is "WEFT" ?

  • User profile image
    jamie

    http://www.microsoft.com/typography/web/embedding/weft3/default.htm


    so the code it generates is:

    <STYLE TYPE="text/css">
    <!-- /* $WEFT -- Created by: Jamie Grant (jamie@jamiegrant.com) on 1/9/2004 -- */
      @font-face {
        font-family: Times New Roman;
        font-style:  normal;
        font-weight: normal;
        src: url(/fonts\TIMESNE1.eot);
      }
      @font-face {
        font-family: VAGRounded BT;
        font-style:  normal;
        font-weight: normal;
        src: url(/fonts\VAGROUN2.eot);
      }
      @font-face {
        font-family: BankGothic Md BT;
        font-style:  normal;
        font-weight: normal;
        src: url(/fonts\BANKGOT0.eot);
      }
      @font-face {
        font-family: AddElectricCity;
        font-style:  normal;
        font-weight: normal;
        src: url(/fonts\ADDELEC2.eot);
      }
      @font-face {
        font-family: BellCent NamNum BT;
        font-style:  normal;
        font-weight: normal;
        src: url(/fonts\BELLCEN1.eot);
      }
      @font-face {
        font-family: BellCent SubCap BT;
        font-style:  normal;
        font-weight: normal;
        src: url(/fonts\BELLCEN0.eot);
      }
      @font-face {
        font-family: BellGothic Blk BT;
        font-style:  normal;
        font-weight: normal;
        src: url(/fonts\BELLGOT5.eot);
      }
      @font-face {
        font-family: BellGothic BT;
        font-style:  normal;
        font-weight: normal;
        src: url(/fonts\BELLGOT4.eot);
      }
      @font-face {
        font-family: Franklin Gothic Book;
        font-style:  normal;
        font-weight: normal;
        src: url(/fonts\FRANKLI2.eot);
      }
      @font-face {
        font-family: Geometr706 Md BT;
        font-style:  normal;
        font-weight: normal;
        src: url(/fonts\GEOMETR2.eot);
      }
    -->
    </STYLE>

    the eot files are web versions of fonts you put in a folder

    * i love css for stuff like this (not page layout! ;p )

    edit: actually - is weft open? - could they support it even if they wanted to?

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    It wouldn't.

    That generates CSS is invalid properties "src: url("");". Mozilla is sworn to adhere to standards and prefix all propriety properties appropriately.

    Add this to the Mozilla Bugzilla and see how it goes along, but since yours is the first site I've ever seen to actually use WEFT, I doubt they'll update it due to lack of demand.

  • User profile image
    Maurits

    Those \'s in the url() things would need to be /'s
    Other than that the CSS is all standard - the trick will be whether Firefox can handle those EOT files, or if they're locked down in some IE-proprietary way (either via software or via patents)

    EDIT: Hit Post before I saw W3bbo's post - checking compliancy of src...
    EDIT2: src is compliant, consider this example straight from the CSS2 spec:
    @font-face {
    font-family: "Robson Celtic";
    src: url("http://site/fonts/rob-celt");
    }
    So the only questions are:
    1) Are EOTs created by WEFT open to be interpreted by non-IE browsers
    2) Does Firefox implement this feature of CSS2

    If both answers are eventually "yes", then sure

  • User profile image
    jamie

    really? thats great

    hopefully weft is open

    this might be a great thing like flexwiki ms could truely open

    What did you do today?
    Not much..just made every font available on the web.

    THat would be cool press for ms
    [y]

  • User profile image
    Maurits

    See Mozilla bug #70132 for the Firefox side of the story.

  • User profile image
    Maurits

    Michael Kaplan wrote:

    ... in an upcoming post I'll talk about the (now publicly documented) embedding technology behind .EOT files


    Sweet...

  • User profile image
    Rowan

    jamie wrote:

    the cursor control on the main top toolbar (shows a text cursor - ie shows hand cursor)


    How many times shall we repeat this; it's because Firefox doesn't support non-standard CSS/HTML.

    "cursor:hand" is made up by MS, ie, proprietary. The correct value for what you want is "cursor:pointer". Wink

    edit: who's been bumping old threads? >_<

  • User profile image
    Maurits

    Rowan wrote:
    edit: who's been bumping old threads? >_<


    That was me, because new information has surfaced.

  • User profile image
    Jason Cox

    Rowan wrote:
    jamie wrote:
    the cursor control on the main top toolbar (shows a text cursor - ie shows hand cursor)


    How many times shall we repeat this; it's because Firefox doesn't support non-standard CSS/HTML.
    Yet it supports non-standard Mozilla tags.

  • User profile image
    Cannot​Resolve​Symbol

    Jason Cox wrote:
    Rowan wrote:
    jamie wrote:
    the cursor control on the main top toolbar (shows a text cursor - ie shows hand cursor)


    How many times shall we repeat this; it's because Firefox doesn't support non-standard CSS/HTML.
    Yet it supports non-standard Mozilla tags.


    But tags prefixed like -moz- are legal.

  • User profile image
    Maurits

    CannotResolveSymbol wrote:
    But tags prefixed like -moz- are legal.


    Yup... tags prefixed with -msie- would be legal too.

    -msie-scrollbar-face-color: ...;
    -msie-filter: ...;
    etc.

  • User profile image
    jamie

    Maurits wrote:
    Michael Kaplan wrote:
    ... in an upcoming post I'll talk about the (now publicly documented) embedding technology behind .EOT files


    Sweet...


    so is this saying it is open? or it will be?
    i didnt get all the programming talk and the chinese character stuff

    what is he saying - that they will make weft open - so ff can impliment it? (someone will..hopefully)

    then thats great!  more than 20 fonts for the web. bout time

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    I can't see the Firefox guys implementing this, after all they didn't implement ActiveX and created their own extension mechanism...

  • User profile image
    spoofnozzle

    Rowan wrote:
    jamie wrote:
    the cursor control on the main top toolbar (shows a text cursor - ie shows hand cursor)


    How many times shall we repeat this; it's because Firefox doesn't support non-standard CSS/HTML.

    "cursor:hand" is made up by MS, ie, proprietary. The correct value for what you want is "cursor:pointer". Wink

    edit: who's been bumping old threads? >_<


    I just shove 'em both in, either browser can choose to honour/ignore what it does/doesn't support.

    {
       ...
       cursor:hand
       cursor:pointer
       ...
    }

  • User profile image
    Maurits

    PaoloM wrote:
    I can't see the Firefox guys implementing this, after all they didn't implement ActiveX and created their own extension mechanism...


    Well, technically, they inherited Netscape's plugin mechanism (which predates ActiveX) and have been using it ever since

    Also see Mozilla ActiveX Project

    EDIT: oh, never mind, you said "extension mechanism", not "plugin mechanism."  Forget I said anything.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.