Looking for a job? Check out the CMSWire Job Board.

W3C Tackles Web Typography with CSS 3

By Marisa Peacock

Jun 13. 2008

Whether it’s the Web API Working Group publishing a Working Draft of “Progress Events 1.0 or the CSS Working Group defining the syntax for using namespaces in CSS, have no doubt that the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has been hard at work trying to keep our dear web world in line.

About a month ago in an attempt to finalize the standards for the features of CSS 3 — the third version of Cascading Style Sheets — Jason Cranford Teague, a member of the W3C CSS Working Group and perhaps most notably the Director of Web Design for AOL Global Programming, posted an article on his blog covering the specifications for CSS Fonts and CSS Web Fonts and in the same quill stroke called for input from the design community.

The Difference: CSS Fonts vs. CSS Web Fonts

According to Teague, the difference between the two is as follows:

CSS Fonts
The CSS Fonts module defines how type is displayed on the page — which font is used, its size, and how it is styled (bold, italics, small-caps, etc). Font styles effect how the individual glyphs (what’s a glyph?) are displayed whereas text styles, such as underline, are applied evenly across all glyphs.

SPONSORSHIP

CMSWire speaks to a specific audience of professionals and opinion makers focused on content management, publishing and collaboration.
Advertise here.

CSS Web Fonts
The CSS Web Fonts module details how to download a font file for use in a webpage, similar to how images are downloaded. It also includes the ability to better match fonts for design with those that are available to the end-user or even synthesize them as needed.

While Fonts and Web Fonts can be semantically tied together, there are significant technical and logistical implications that will keep them separate. There are more details up for debate within the CSS Web Fonts than there are for CSS Fonts and as a result the Working Group does not want to hold up its development and deployment.

CSS 3 and Downloading Fonts

At the heart of the matter is how CSS 3 will handle how fonts will be downloaded for webpages. The typeface issue has less to do with CSS standards and more to do with intellectual property of those foundries who create fonts. On a technical level, it is possible to place font files on a server and have the browser download them. However it poses two bigger quandaries, namely how to ensure that the end user doesn’t take the font files and that the designer using the font has the rights to use it.

Delivering Better Specifications

For web designers working with CSS and HTML, CSS 3 modules hope to deliver better font specifications, relating to font properties and character styles, but not those that include styles applied over an entire block of text such as underlining or rotating text. How designers actually use and understand the ins and outs of CSS and HTML could affect what specifications are recommended.

Yet, what they don’t know could impact them even more. In a recent post from the 37Signals company blog, Signal vs. Noise, David Heinemeir ranted about how Web Designers Should Do Their Own HTML/CSS. He wrote:

…designing for the web is a lot less about making something dazzle and a lot more about making it work. The design decisions that matter pertain directly to the constraints of the materials. What form elements to use. What font sizes. What composition. What flow. Those decisions are poorly made at an arm’s length.

What Do Designers Want?

So what kinds of feedback has the Working Group received? Among the comments gathered from Teague’s site, designers want everything from typographical options for downloading typefaces, to the ability to provide different styles for each fallback font, to font strokes that will allow users to specify a stroke around a glyph including the stroke weight, color, pattern and whether it appears inside, outside or centered on the glyph outline, as well as issues of hyphenation and kerning.

The Working Group has been reading the feedback and providing qualifications and explanations in return. For example, font attributes that require changes to the syntax can’t be considered as they wouldn’t be compatible in earlier CSS versions.

The CSS Working Group will assemble again in August for a presentation of revisions for the CSS Fonts and Web Fonts modules, so there is still time to offer up your input. You can leave your feedback via the CSS Public discussion forum, www-style or Jason Cranford Teague’s blog. In addition, drop us a comment here if you’ve got a strong opinion.

Was this article useful?

Tell a Friend Digg It!

Digg It

Tag It

Stumble It

The Latest Headlines

Comments

Honestly I think the new standard proposal is too complex. My idea is that CSS 3 browsers should support looking up fonts via an open font directory on the web, much like DNS. One could run their own font directory if they chose, but I imagine the one that Firefox or IE points at being the central one. Then when a font is referenced in any web page and it's not installed on the local computer, the browser hits the font directory, gets the path to the font file on the web, downloads it and renders it.

The best thing is it's backward compatible with all the web sites and CSS that's out there right now. No code changes required.

http://www.kpao.org/2008/06/wanted-font-family-font-server-plug-in-firefox.html

Posted by: Dave C on June 16, 2008 5:08 PM

Dave,

there is no need for a "central font directory", just like there is no need to look anything up for fonts. Fonts can be specified by a family name (local fonts) or by a URL (server fonts i.e. web fonts). The URL is good enough, why would you want anything else?

Also, the problem with a central font directory is that it would never replace URL addressing of font resources. Why? Simply because not all web fonts will be for everyone to use, just like not all images are "for everyone to use" even though they're "on the web". If I obtain a license to use a server font on my corporate website, it does not mean that automatically other web designers can use that font on their websites — this is similar to images, again. If I purchase an image for use on my website, it does not mean that everyone else can use that images on their websites.

So what would the central repository do?

Also, keep in mind that one web designer can use a server font named "Garamond" on their website and another can also use a server font named "Garamond", but those will be completely different fonts — just like my "photo.jpg" is likely different from your "photo.jpg". It's the URL that will make the difference and uniquely define the font's location.

The web itself is a "central index of files" — and the URL is simply the unique address in that index. I don't understand why we would need a separate structure just for fonts.

Adam

Posted by: Adam Twardoch on June 18, 2008 9:45 AM

I am all for new ways (i.e. not Flash) to render fonts directly to the browser without having to mess with the OS.

I think that having a way to display fonts, especially in well-designed web pages, will be better for the foundries, designers and everyone involved. Over time, the average user will be able to experience the impact of good design. Right now, we're crippled with Verdana, Arial and Tahoma.

Did CSS help font sales when some developer included "Meta Sans" or "Proxima Nova" or "Futura" at the beginning of a font-family declaration? I doubt it. I do know that at least one curious developer seeks-out those fonts to get a feel for how the designer intended the site to look. Not many are going to go through such undertaking. So back to the VAT.

When the general public uses fonts like they do legal music downloads, then we'll see change. We're not quite there, yet.

Posted by: benxamin on June 25, 2008 11:46 PM

Content Management Matters ™