<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_02_2025242</id>
	<title>Web Open Font Format Gets Backing From Mozilla</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1257155880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>A new format specification has reached consensus among web and type designers and is being backed by Mozilla.  Dubbed <a href="http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/11/web-open-font-format-backed-by-mozilla-type-foundries.ars?utm\_source=rss&amp;utm\_medium=rss&amp;utm\_campaign=rss">Web Open Font Format</a> (WOFF), it is an effort to bring advanced typography to the Web in a much better way.  Support for the new spec will be included as a part of Firefox 3.6 which just <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2009/10/30/firefox-3-6-beta-1-is-now-available-for-download/">recently hit beta</a>.  <i>"WOFF combines the work Leming and Blokland had done on embedding a variety of useful font metadata with the font resource compression that Kew had developed. The end result is a format that includes optimized compression that reduces the download time needed to load font resources while incorporating information about the font's origin and licensing. The format doesn't include any encryption or DRM, so it should be universally accepted by browser vendors &mdash; this should also qualify it for adoption by the W3C."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>A new format specification has reached consensus among web and type designers and is being backed by Mozilla .
Dubbed Web Open Font Format ( WOFF ) , it is an effort to bring advanced typography to the Web in a much better way .
Support for the new spec will be included as a part of Firefox 3.6 which just recently hit beta .
" WOFF combines the work Leming and Blokland had done on embedding a variety of useful font metadata with the font resource compression that Kew had developed .
The end result is a format that includes optimized compression that reduces the download time needed to load font resources while incorporating information about the font 's origin and licensing .
The format does n't include any encryption or DRM , so it should be universally accepted by browser vendors    this should also qualify it for adoption by the W3C .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A new format specification has reached consensus among web and type designers and is being backed by Mozilla.
Dubbed Web Open Font Format (WOFF), it is an effort to bring advanced typography to the Web in a much better way.
Support for the new spec will be included as a part of Firefox 3.6 which just recently hit beta.
"WOFF combines the work Leming and Blokland had done on embedding a variety of useful font metadata with the font resource compression that Kew had developed.
The end result is a format that includes optimized compression that reduces the download time needed to load font resources while incorporating information about the font's origin and licensing.
The format doesn't include any encryption or DRM, so it should be universally accepted by browser vendors — this should also qualify it for adoption by the W3C.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956210</id>
	<title>Re:Easier fonts means a lot!</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1257162000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fortunately for me I don't even have this font on my comp... oh wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fortunately for me I do n't even have this font on my comp... oh wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fortunately for me I don't even have this font on my comp... oh wait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956160</id>
	<title>Sort of...</title>
	<author>Overzeetop</author>
	<datestamp>1257161760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was never a time when the web truly content rich. It was all content, but very poor and very incomplete, and then it morphed into today's web somewhat seamlessly with both fluff and content coming on line in parallel. I'm just glad the developers have gotten over full page flash for the most part. There was a time 3-4 years ago when entire, major corporate sites (Bath &amp; Body Works comes to mind) were protected by flash-only portals. No flash, no entry.</p><p>This would be a fabulous idea if the web were limited to accomplished graphic designers, but it's not - and that's where the problem comes in. There are a lot of people out there who just don't have the ability to create a readable site, even if they have otherwise good content. This just gives them another way to present their useful information poorly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was never a time when the web truly content rich .
It was all content , but very poor and very incomplete , and then it morphed into today 's web somewhat seamlessly with both fluff and content coming on line in parallel .
I 'm just glad the developers have gotten over full page flash for the most part .
There was a time 3-4 years ago when entire , major corporate sites ( Bath &amp; Body Works comes to mind ) were protected by flash-only portals .
No flash , no entry.This would be a fabulous idea if the web were limited to accomplished graphic designers , but it 's not - and that 's where the problem comes in .
There are a lot of people out there who just do n't have the ability to create a readable site , even if they have otherwise good content .
This just gives them another way to present their useful information poorly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was never a time when the web truly content rich.
It was all content, but very poor and very incomplete, and then it morphed into today's web somewhat seamlessly with both fluff and content coming on line in parallel.
I'm just glad the developers have gotten over full page flash for the most part.
There was a time 3-4 years ago when entire, major corporate sites (Bath &amp; Body Works comes to mind) were protected by flash-only portals.
No flash, no entry.This would be a fabulous idea if the web were limited to accomplished graphic designers, but it's not - and that's where the problem comes in.
There are a lot of people out there who just don't have the ability to create a readable site, even if they have otherwise good content.
This just gives them another way to present their useful information poorly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956698</id>
	<title>Compressed OpenType?</title>
	<author>klapaucjusz</author>
	<datestamp>1257164820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do I read the article right?  It's just a compression scheme for OpenType?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do I read the article right ?
It 's just a compression scheme for OpenType ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do I read the article right?
It's just a compression scheme for OpenType?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956086</id>
	<title>Re:More Fonts for the Internet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257161340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to browse more commercial and artistic sites. Text being replaced by images is commonplace. Yes, the text is there, for Google if nothing else, but most users will see the images instead. The browser doesn't load a few kBytes of font data, it loads many more kBytes of PNGs that end up being not selectable, non-scalable and ignorant of aliasing preferences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to browse more commercial and artistic sites .
Text being replaced by images is commonplace .
Yes , the text is there , for Google if nothing else , but most users will see the images instead .
The browser does n't load a few kBytes of font data , it loads many more kBytes of PNGs that end up being not selectable , non-scalable and ignorant of aliasing preferences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to browse more commercial and artistic sites.
Text being replaced by images is commonplace.
Yes, the text is there, for Google if nothing else, but most users will see the images instead.
The browser doesn't load a few kBytes of font data, it loads many more kBytes of PNGs that end up being not selectable, non-scalable and ignorant of aliasing preferences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956674</id>
	<title>Web can now use any font?</title>
	<author>u0berdev</author>
	<datestamp>1257164700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another nail in the print media coffin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another nail in the print media coffin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another nail in the print media coffin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29958084</id>
	<title>Does this mean LaTeX is coming to the web?</title>
	<author>BanachSpaceCadet</author>
	<datestamp>1257171540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will we finally see an adequate, standardized implementation of LaTeX online?  The lack of such an implementation was recently lamented by Fields Medal winner Terrance Tao on his blog:

<a href="http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/displaying-mathematics-on-the-web/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/displaying-mathematics-on-the-web/</a> [wordpress.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will we finally see an adequate , standardized implementation of LaTeX online ?
The lack of such an implementation was recently lamented by Fields Medal winner Terrance Tao on his blog : http : //terrytao.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/displaying-mathematics-on-the-web/ [ wordpress.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will we finally see an adequate, standardized implementation of LaTeX online?
The lack of such an implementation was recently lamented by Fields Medal winner Terrance Tao on his blog:

http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/displaying-mathematics-on-the-web/ [wordpress.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956590</id>
	<title>Re:Easier fonts means a lot!</title>
	<author>keytoe</author>
	<datestamp>1257164160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know it's not an XKCD link, but it's surprisingly relevant to the topic: <a href="http://achewood.com/index.php?date=07052007" title="achewood.com">http://achewood.com/index.php?date=07052007</a> [achewood.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it 's not an XKCD link , but it 's surprisingly relevant to the topic : http : //achewood.com/index.php ? date = 07052007 [ achewood.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it's not an XKCD link, but it's surprisingly relevant to the topic: http://achewood.com/index.php?date=07052007 [achewood.com] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956418</id>
	<title>Re:Light Edition called WOFFLE</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1257163080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And later, they'll implement BUTTUR and SYRIP?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And later , they 'll implement BUTTUR and SYRIP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And later, they'll implement BUTTUR and SYRIP?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29961592</id>
	<title>Does WOFF support complex positioning, etc?</title>
	<author>Chrisq</author>
	<datestamp>1257247980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does WOFF support complex positioning, etc, like <a href="http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site\_id=nrsi&amp;id=GraphiteFAQ" title="sil.org">graphite</a> [sil.org]? If not it won't be a lot of help for minority languages as the OS or browser  will have to know their layout rules to display them properly. Remember the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/technology/25wikipedia.html?\_r=1" title="nytimes.com">devanagari error in the Wikipedia logo</a> [nytimes.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does WOFF support complex positioning , etc , like graphite [ sil.org ] ?
If not it wo n't be a lot of help for minority languages as the OS or browser will have to know their layout rules to display them properly .
Remember the devanagari error in the Wikipedia logo [ nytimes.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does WOFF support complex positioning, etc, like graphite [sil.org]?
If not it won't be a lot of help for minority languages as the OS or browser  will have to know their layout rules to display them properly.
Remember the devanagari error in the Wikipedia logo [nytimes.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956558</id>
	<title>What the hell for??  Is this a trick by Adobe?</title>
	<author>Cartan</author>
	<datestamp>1257163980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I want PDF, I know where to find it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I want PDF , I know where to find it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I want PDF, I know where to find it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966576</id>
	<title>Lack of Ctrl+F is a browser limitation</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1257277920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Text in images is not Ctrl-F searchable</p></div><p>This is a limitation of user agents. Ideally, Ctrl+F should search images' alternate text as if it were in the page as an ordinary text node.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Text in images is not Ctrl-F searchableThis is a limitation of user agents .
Ideally , Ctrl + F should search images ' alternate text as if it were in the page as an ordinary text node .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Text in images is not Ctrl-F searchableThis is a limitation of user agents.
Ideally, Ctrl+F should search images' alternate text as if it were in the page as an ordinary text node.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955880</id>
	<title>Re:Great, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257160440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The web isn't really font-agnostic.  It hasn't been since styles were introduced.  What it is is font-limited, because the content provider can specify the preferred fonts, but can't control the actual fonts used.  To be sure, this doesn't remove control from the end-user.  They will still probably be able to reject a new font.  You can also create content the old way, either with no font specified, or with your preferred font list of popular fonts.  This simply adds an option for content providers who want to use fonts that are not necessarily likely to be installed on the user's machine, but are preferable to using images.  Text in images is not Ctrl-F searchable and can consume a lot of bandwidth relative to text.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The web is n't really font-agnostic .
It has n't been since styles were introduced .
What it is is font-limited , because the content provider can specify the preferred fonts , but ca n't control the actual fonts used .
To be sure , this does n't remove control from the end-user .
They will still probably be able to reject a new font .
You can also create content the old way , either with no font specified , or with your preferred font list of popular fonts .
This simply adds an option for content providers who want to use fonts that are not necessarily likely to be installed on the user 's machine , but are preferable to using images .
Text in images is not Ctrl-F searchable and can consume a lot of bandwidth relative to text .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web isn't really font-agnostic.
It hasn't been since styles were introduced.
What it is is font-limited, because the content provider can specify the preferred fonts, but can't control the actual fonts used.
To be sure, this doesn't remove control from the end-user.
They will still probably be able to reject a new font.
You can also create content the old way, either with no font specified, or with your preferred font list of popular fonts.
This simply adds an option for content providers who want to use fonts that are not necessarily likely to be installed on the user's machine, but are preferable to using images.
Text in images is not Ctrl-F searchable and can consume a lot of bandwidth relative to text.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957430</id>
	<title>Zapf Chancery is the devil's handwork.</title>
	<author>oliverk</author>
	<datestamp>1257168660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I really, really want more typographic control in my layouts, the lack of talent and discretion among the great unwashed scares the bejeezus out of me. I foresee a future where surfing the web will be like reading email signatures, page after page...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I really , really want more typographic control in my layouts , the lack of talent and discretion among the great unwashed scares the bejeezus out of me .
I foresee a future where surfing the web will be like reading email signatures , page after page.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I really, really want more typographic control in my layouts, the lack of talent and discretion among the great unwashed scares the bejeezus out of me.
I foresee a future where surfing the web will be like reading email signatures, page after page...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957828</id>
	<title>Re:format does not matter, it's about download lim</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257170280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The interesting part of WOFF is not that it is a new font format. Actually it is mostly a wrapper around the OpenType format from Microsoft and Adobe with some goodies.</i> <br> <br>Hmm interesting, I guess like how OpenType was pretty much Apple's TrueType with some extra goodies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The interesting part of WOFF is not that it is a new font format .
Actually it is mostly a wrapper around the OpenType format from Microsoft and Adobe with some goodies .
Hmm interesting , I guess like how OpenType was pretty much Apple 's TrueType with some extra goodies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The interesting part of WOFF is not that it is a new font format.
Actually it is mostly a wrapper around the OpenType format from Microsoft and Adobe with some goodies.
Hmm interesting, I guess like how OpenType was pretty much Apple's TrueType with some extra goodies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956136</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone else long for the days...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257161640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...when the web was more about content than fancy presentation?</p></div><p>No, you can't have your (ugly) static unstyled HTML back.  Because the history of the web has shown that limiting technology presents no real limit to either bad presentation or awful information architecture.  Web publishers who are <em>doin' it wrong</em> will continue to suck no matter how the medium evolves.  It's the people with a clue, who create compelling new experiences, who are the ones I want to see empowered with new ways of doing things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...when the web was more about content than fancy presentation ? No , you ca n't have your ( ugly ) static unstyled HTML back .
Because the history of the web has shown that limiting technology presents no real limit to either bad presentation or awful information architecture .
Web publishers who are doin ' it wrong will continue to suck no matter how the medium evolves .
It 's the people with a clue , who create compelling new experiences , who are the ones I want to see empowered with new ways of doing things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...when the web was more about content than fancy presentation?No, you can't have your (ugly) static unstyled HTML back.
Because the history of the web has shown that limiting technology presents no real limit to either bad presentation or awful information architecture.
Web publishers who are doin' it wrong will continue to suck no matter how the medium evolves.
It's the people with a clue, who create compelling new experiences, who are the ones I want to see empowered with new ways of doing things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29962808</id>
	<title>Typography and fonts online are so overrated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257260220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Web browsers will not be able to catch up in readability with print because of screen resolution. They will also not be able to catch up with expressiveness because of screen resolution as well. All these sublety that typographers always rail about when it comes to fonts is lost when there are just 13 pixels to render a capital letter. At this size it is not even possible to distinguish for example properly hinted Arial, Frutiger, Univers and Helvetica.</p><p>All this is just the result of 15 years of whining from graphic designers wanting their fonts back -- because they think that fonts are the solution for all design challenges.</p><p>But whatever, if it makes them shut up finally i will be happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Web browsers will not be able to catch up in readability with print because of screen resolution .
They will also not be able to catch up with expressiveness because of screen resolution as well .
All these sublety that typographers always rail about when it comes to fonts is lost when there are just 13 pixels to render a capital letter .
At this size it is not even possible to distinguish for example properly hinted Arial , Frutiger , Univers and Helvetica.All this is just the result of 15 years of whining from graphic designers wanting their fonts back -- because they think that fonts are the solution for all design challenges.But whatever , if it makes them shut up finally i will be happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web browsers will not be able to catch up in readability with print because of screen resolution.
They will also not be able to catch up with expressiveness because of screen resolution as well.
All these sublety that typographers always rail about when it comes to fonts is lost when there are just 13 pixels to render a capital letter.
At this size it is not even possible to distinguish for example properly hinted Arial, Frutiger, Univers and Helvetica.All this is just the result of 15 years of whining from graphic designers wanting their fonts back -- because they think that fonts are the solution for all design challenges.But whatever, if it makes them shut up finally i will be happy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956682</id>
	<title>Answer looking for a problem?</title>
	<author>netux</author>
	<datestamp>1257164700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/seven-web-fonts-showcases/" title="opera.com" rel="nofollow">CSS 3 Web Fonts</a> [opera.com] is already a done deal, so is there some real reason we need yet another way to get fonts to a user?  If the font won't work on their browser, fall back to browser default, wow, it won't look as purdy, boo-hoo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CSS 3 Web Fonts [ opera.com ] is already a done deal , so is there some real reason we need yet another way to get fonts to a user ?
If the font wo n't work on their browser , fall back to browser default , wow , it wo n't look as purdy , boo-hoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> CSS 3 Web Fonts [opera.com] is already a done deal, so is there some real reason we need yet another way to get fonts to a user?
If the font won't work on their browser, fall back to browser default, wow, it won't look as purdy, boo-hoo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956336</id>
	<title>Re:format does not matter, it's about download lim</title>
	<author>Magic5Ball</author>
	<datestamp>1257162660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As we've seen with Flash applets and such, site-locking will primarily result in diverting users from File|Save As... to the several hundred free and for-profit sites/utilities which will pop up to solve this problem. Just look at the large number of YouTube video downloaders, Flash hacks, JavaScript de-obfuscators and PDF liberators.</p><p>If something like this open but restricted font distribution scheme is to succeed, it has to learn from the postscript/pdf experience, in which simple "do not copy or embed" flags are useless if the applications do not check or enforce them. Fonts embedded in PDFs are only marginally protected insofar as the PDF only stores the subset of characters actually used in the document, and even then, there are several OSS utilities to extract fonts form PDFs. The web situation is even worse in that with user-generated content, an average debugger/game cheater app, or the source code to Firefox, it would be pretty trivial to mount a dictionary attack to obtain the data for an entire font, its weights, and variants.</p><p>This scheme will only be viable if the server does some of the interpreting (e.g. of j/k rules which distinguishes most good fonts from the junk), and presents only a description of the results of rule interpretation to the browser, and even then a dictionary attack to derive the empirical rules would be fairly trivial with or without signing/certificates and the like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As we 've seen with Flash applets and such , site-locking will primarily result in diverting users from File | Save As... to the several hundred free and for-profit sites/utilities which will pop up to solve this problem .
Just look at the large number of YouTube video downloaders , Flash hacks , JavaScript de-obfuscators and PDF liberators.If something like this open but restricted font distribution scheme is to succeed , it has to learn from the postscript/pdf experience , in which simple " do not copy or embed " flags are useless if the applications do not check or enforce them .
Fonts embedded in PDFs are only marginally protected insofar as the PDF only stores the subset of characters actually used in the document , and even then , there are several OSS utilities to extract fonts form PDFs .
The web situation is even worse in that with user-generated content , an average debugger/game cheater app , or the source code to Firefox , it would be pretty trivial to mount a dictionary attack to obtain the data for an entire font , its weights , and variants.This scheme will only be viable if the server does some of the interpreting ( e.g .
of j/k rules which distinguishes most good fonts from the junk ) , and presents only a description of the results of rule interpretation to the browser , and even then a dictionary attack to derive the empirical rules would be fairly trivial with or without signing/certificates and the like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we've seen with Flash applets and such, site-locking will primarily result in diverting users from File|Save As... to the several hundred free and for-profit sites/utilities which will pop up to solve this problem.
Just look at the large number of YouTube video downloaders, Flash hacks, JavaScript de-obfuscators and PDF liberators.If something like this open but restricted font distribution scheme is to succeed, it has to learn from the postscript/pdf experience, in which simple "do not copy or embed" flags are useless if the applications do not check or enforce them.
Fonts embedded in PDFs are only marginally protected insofar as the PDF only stores the subset of characters actually used in the document, and even then, there are several OSS utilities to extract fonts form PDFs.
The web situation is even worse in that with user-generated content, an average debugger/game cheater app, or the source code to Firefox, it would be pretty trivial to mount a dictionary attack to obtain the data for an entire font, its weights, and variants.This scheme will only be viable if the server does some of the interpreting (e.g.
of j/k rules which distinguishes most good fonts from the junk), and presents only a description of the results of rule interpretation to the browser, and even then a dictionary attack to derive the empirical rules would be fairly trivial with or without signing/certificates and the like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955732</id>
	<title>Re:Easier fonts means a lot!</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1257159900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>For example, just imagine a world where every website can easily implement Comic Sans, even if the end user has uninstalled the font.</i></p><p>Unfortunately I think most web sites will standardise on Windings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , just imagine a world where every website can easily implement Comic Sans , even if the end user has uninstalled the font.Unfortunately I think most web sites will standardise on Windings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, just imagine a world where every website can easily implement Comic Sans, even if the end user has uninstalled the font.Unfortunately I think most web sites will standardise on Windings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957496</id>
	<title>Does the new format...</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1257168960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does it include a "blink" attribute?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it include a " blink " attribute ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it include a "blink" attribute?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957874</id>
	<title>Just wondering...</title>
	<author>aldld</author>
	<datestamp>1257170520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How will this affect download times?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How will this affect download times ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How will this affect download times?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957092</id>
	<title>Re:Brillian idea</title>
	<author>Radhruin</author>
	<datestamp>1257167280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think we can all agree that not providing features for creative control of a medium because some people might make a pile of feces out of it is a terrible idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we can all agree that not providing features for creative control of a medium because some people might make a pile of feces out of it is a terrible idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we can all agree that not providing features for creative control of a medium because some people might make a pile of feces out of it is a terrible idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956228</id>
	<title>I only need one font.</title>
	<author>mirix</author>
	<datestamp>1257162060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Courier.

I like to pretend I'm reading a typewriter printout.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Courier .
I like to pretend I 'm reading a typewriter printout .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Courier.
I like to pretend I'm reading a typewriter printout.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955646</id>
	<title>aaaaaaaa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257159540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First POST!!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First POST ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First POST!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29959876</id>
	<title>Re:Brillian idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257183780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are assuming that the difference between one font and another is purely presentation, and that the user already has adequate fonts available. For those who do not deal with fonts often and the technical needs of many websites, here is an example.<br> <br>For romanized Indic text (used in many translations of Hindu and Buddhist literature), a number of Unicode letters and diacritics are needed that go well beyond the characters typically used in Western European languages (for example, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAST" title="wikipedia.org">IAST</a> [wikipedia.org]). Each platform has different fonts available by default that may handle these characters. Linux has the DejaVu fonts and Apple has Lucida Grande, but Microsoft only has Microsoft Sans Serif, which is the ugly cousin of Arial. In this font, there are no real italics, and the "fake italics" used look hideous because the slant is so exaggerated that they are painful to read. Any website text rendered in this font absolutely stinks for readability and for aesthetics.<br> <br>I would like to be able to use a standard method of offering a font such as Linux Libertine or DejaVu Sans, that renders acceptably under Windows (most fonts don't), and have that handled in a streamlined way. Otherwise, I am forced to either make web pages that render as ugly as sin under Windows, or put up an optional page that explains how a user can download the font and manually install it. Both of these options are unacceptable for diacritics that should be so standard by now. Microsoft has really dropped the ball on Unicode support in its fonts, and web developers are left to try to cobble together solutions. The only other alternative is to only provide PDF's made with XeTeX, but PDF is no replacement for a web page.<br> <br>Most<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. readers are happy with a few ANSI characters, as long as they can see some code examples in their web browser, and as long as it renders English correctly, but there is a whole world of people who have entirely different needs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are assuming that the difference between one font and another is purely presentation , and that the user already has adequate fonts available .
For those who do not deal with fonts often and the technical needs of many websites , here is an example .
For romanized Indic text ( used in many translations of Hindu and Buddhist literature ) , a number of Unicode letters and diacritics are needed that go well beyond the characters typically used in Western European languages ( for example , IAST [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
Each platform has different fonts available by default that may handle these characters .
Linux has the DejaVu fonts and Apple has Lucida Grande , but Microsoft only has Microsoft Sans Serif , which is the ugly cousin of Arial .
In this font , there are no real italics , and the " fake italics " used look hideous because the slant is so exaggerated that they are painful to read .
Any website text rendered in this font absolutely stinks for readability and for aesthetics .
I would like to be able to use a standard method of offering a font such as Linux Libertine or DejaVu Sans , that renders acceptably under Windows ( most fonts do n't ) , and have that handled in a streamlined way .
Otherwise , I am forced to either make web pages that render as ugly as sin under Windows , or put up an optional page that explains how a user can download the font and manually install it .
Both of these options are unacceptable for diacritics that should be so standard by now .
Microsoft has really dropped the ball on Unicode support in its fonts , and web developers are left to try to cobble together solutions .
The only other alternative is to only provide PDF 's made with XeTeX , but PDF is no replacement for a web page .
Most / .
readers are happy with a few ANSI characters , as long as they can see some code examples in their web browser , and as long as it renders English correctly , but there is a whole world of people who have entirely different needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are assuming that the difference between one font and another is purely presentation, and that the user already has adequate fonts available.
For those who do not deal with fonts often and the technical needs of many websites, here is an example.
For romanized Indic text (used in many translations of Hindu and Buddhist literature), a number of Unicode letters and diacritics are needed that go well beyond the characters typically used in Western European languages (for example, IAST [wikipedia.org]).
Each platform has different fonts available by default that may handle these characters.
Linux has the DejaVu fonts and Apple has Lucida Grande, but Microsoft only has Microsoft Sans Serif, which is the ugly cousin of Arial.
In this font, there are no real italics, and the "fake italics" used look hideous because the slant is so exaggerated that they are painful to read.
Any website text rendered in this font absolutely stinks for readability and for aesthetics.
I would like to be able to use a standard method of offering a font such as Linux Libertine or DejaVu Sans, that renders acceptably under Windows (most fonts don't), and have that handled in a streamlined way.
Otherwise, I am forced to either make web pages that render as ugly as sin under Windows, or put up an optional page that explains how a user can download the font and manually install it.
Both of these options are unacceptable for diacritics that should be so standard by now.
Microsoft has really dropped the ball on Unicode support in its fonts, and web developers are left to try to cobble together solutions.
The only other alternative is to only provide PDF's made with XeTeX, but PDF is no replacement for a web page.
Most /.
readers are happy with a few ANSI characters, as long as they can see some code examples in their web browser, and as long as it renders English correctly, but there is a whole world of people who have entirely different needs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957204</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone else long for the days...</title>
	<author>Radhruin</author>
	<datestamp>1257167700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why? Because the web is about much more than sending words and bytes back and forth. It's about communication, of which there are many forms. Wanting to use a certain font to convey a certain message is valid. And of course you will always have the choice of whether or not you want to display those fonts, just like you can choose to disable javascript, images, and css if you really want to. And the choice of whether or not you want to visit sites that wish to exercise greater creative control over their medium will always be yours as well.

</p><p>I don't understand the objects to this all over Slashdot. Do you really want to be staring at Verdana, Arial, and Times New Roman for the next 100 years?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ?
Because the web is about much more than sending words and bytes back and forth .
It 's about communication , of which there are many forms .
Wanting to use a certain font to convey a certain message is valid .
And of course you will always have the choice of whether or not you want to display those fonts , just like you can choose to disable javascript , images , and css if you really want to .
And the choice of whether or not you want to visit sites that wish to exercise greater creative control over their medium will always be yours as well .
I do n't understand the objects to this all over Slashdot .
Do you really want to be staring at Verdana , Arial , and Times New Roman for the next 100 years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?
Because the web is about much more than sending words and bytes back and forth.
It's about communication, of which there are many forms.
Wanting to use a certain font to convey a certain message is valid.
And of course you will always have the choice of whether or not you want to display those fonts, just like you can choose to disable javascript, images, and css if you really want to.
And the choice of whether or not you want to visit sites that wish to exercise greater creative control over their medium will always be yours as well.
I don't understand the objects to this all over Slashdot.
Do you really want to be staring at Verdana, Arial, and Times New Roman for the next 100 years?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29965950</id>
	<title>Impossible my behind</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1257274980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You could argue that he's doing it wrong, and he shouldn't be feeding us binary images when he's trying to convey words. On the other hand, you could argue that his site is really nice looking, conveys his message really well, and it's a pity that it's impossible to do this without resorting to such hacks that make the text un-ctrl-f'able, or unreadable by screen readers.</p> </div><p>Impossible? Hardly. Well-written alternate text substitutes nicely for an image of text. I just looked at Seth Godin's page in Firefox 3.5 for Windows, and the only problems I see are that 1. the images' alternate text is too short (should be the same text as in the image), and 2. the image maps don't have alternate text.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could argue that he 's doing it wrong , and he should n't be feeding us binary images when he 's trying to convey words .
On the other hand , you could argue that his site is really nice looking , conveys his message really well , and it 's a pity that it 's impossible to do this without resorting to such hacks that make the text un-ctrl-f'able , or unreadable by screen readers .
Impossible ? Hardly .
Well-written alternate text substitutes nicely for an image of text .
I just looked at Seth Godin 's page in Firefox 3.5 for Windows , and the only problems I see are that 1. the images ' alternate text is too short ( should be the same text as in the image ) , and 2. the image maps do n't have alternate text .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could argue that he's doing it wrong, and he shouldn't be feeding us binary images when he's trying to convey words.
On the other hand, you could argue that his site is really nice looking, conveys his message really well, and it's a pity that it's impossible to do this without resorting to such hacks that make the text un-ctrl-f'able, or unreadable by screen readers.
Impossible? Hardly.
Well-written alternate text substitutes nicely for an image of text.
I just looked at Seth Godin's page in Firefox 3.5 for Windows, and the only problems I see are that 1. the images' alternate text is too short (should be the same text as in the image), and 2. the image maps don't have alternate text.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956008</id>
	<title>Re:How long...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257160980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keep waiting, because the users <i>don't</i> want this. I like my DejaVu Sans and prefer to read all my sites in the same readable font of my choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep waiting , because the users do n't want this .
I like my DejaVu Sans and prefer to read all my sites in the same readable font of my choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep waiting, because the users don't want this.
I like my DejaVu Sans and prefer to read all my sites in the same readable font of my choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29961280</id>
	<title>No.</title>
	<author>mozumder</author>
	<datestamp>1257242880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one longs for those days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one longs for those days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one longs for those days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29958362</id>
	<title>Re:How long...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257172980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Embrace, Extend and Extinguish.</p><p><i>Embrace</i> = Microsoft says they will include the standard in Internet Explorer</p><p><i>Extend</i>  = Microsoft adds and patents their own extensions to the standard. Microsoft makes these extensions "standard" in their web page editing software, that is unreadable on other browsers</p><p><i>Extinguish</i> = Because the standard isn't universal, it either falls out of favor to be replaced by something else, or becomes an IE only feature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Embrace , Extend and Extinguish.Embrace = Microsoft says they will include the standard in Internet ExplorerExtend = Microsoft adds and patents their own extensions to the standard .
Microsoft makes these extensions " standard " in their web page editing software , that is unreadable on other browsersExtinguish = Because the standard is n't universal , it either falls out of favor to be replaced by something else , or becomes an IE only feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Embrace, Extend and Extinguish.Embrace = Microsoft says they will include the standard in Internet ExplorerExtend  = Microsoft adds and patents their own extensions to the standard.
Microsoft makes these extensions "standard" in their web page editing software, that is unreadable on other browsersExtinguish = Because the standard isn't universal, it either falls out of favor to be replaced by something else, or becomes an IE only feature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29961384</id>
	<title>Re:How long...</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1257244680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They don't have to. Microsoft already has own dynamic web fonts. TrueDoc and Embedded OpenType.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't have to .
Microsoft already has own dynamic web fonts .
TrueDoc and Embedded OpenType .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't have to.
Microsoft already has own dynamic web fonts.
TrueDoc and Embedded OpenType.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29961894</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone else long for the days...</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257251400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...when the web was more about content than fancy presentation?</p></div><p>
Lots of people do, just as lots of people long for other golden ages which never existed, and the time when your computer will automatically punch you in the face for starting a sentence in the subject and then continuing it in the message body.</p><p>
I wasn't on the web right at the beginning, I didn't get an Internet account until around '93.  I missed those glory days until I came to university where, working on a history of computing project, I discovered one of the very first web pages in the UK.  It had almost no content, and just pictures of people surfing.  The geeky equivalent of a MySpace page.  </p><p>
I remember that everyone got their own web space from their ISP or (a bit later) from Geocities or the like and that they typically made pages in primitive HTML editors.  I remember the blink and marquee tags being used on every other site.  I remember animated GIFs everywhere.  And then I remember Flash replacing it all with (sometimes) beautiful, but totally unaccessible, vector animations.</p><p>
So, no, I don't long for days that never existed.  I do long for days when people will properly separate content and presentation, so I can enjoy their beautiful presentation if I wish, or replace it with my own style if I prefer.  I'm happy to see fonts being properly supported natively in the browser, rather than faked with images or Flash, because it makes them easier to turn off if I don't like them, but gives competent graphic designers more scope for expression.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...when the web was more about content than fancy presentation ?
Lots of people do , just as lots of people long for other golden ages which never existed , and the time when your computer will automatically punch you in the face for starting a sentence in the subject and then continuing it in the message body .
I was n't on the web right at the beginning , I did n't get an Internet account until around '93 .
I missed those glory days until I came to university where , working on a history of computing project , I discovered one of the very first web pages in the UK .
It had almost no content , and just pictures of people surfing .
The geeky equivalent of a MySpace page .
I remember that everyone got their own web space from their ISP or ( a bit later ) from Geocities or the like and that they typically made pages in primitive HTML editors .
I remember the blink and marquee tags being used on every other site .
I remember animated GIFs everywhere .
And then I remember Flash replacing it all with ( sometimes ) beautiful , but totally unaccessible , vector animations .
So , no , I do n't long for days that never existed .
I do long for days when people will properly separate content and presentation , so I can enjoy their beautiful presentation if I wish , or replace it with my own style if I prefer .
I 'm happy to see fonts being properly supported natively in the browser , rather than faked with images or Flash , because it makes them easier to turn off if I do n't like them , but gives competent graphic designers more scope for expression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...when the web was more about content than fancy presentation?
Lots of people do, just as lots of people long for other golden ages which never existed, and the time when your computer will automatically punch you in the face for starting a sentence in the subject and then continuing it in the message body.
I wasn't on the web right at the beginning, I didn't get an Internet account until around '93.
I missed those glory days until I came to university where, working on a history of computing project, I discovered one of the very first web pages in the UK.
It had almost no content, and just pictures of people surfing.
The geeky equivalent of a MySpace page.
I remember that everyone got their own web space from their ISP or (a bit later) from Geocities or the like and that they typically made pages in primitive HTML editors.
I remember the blink and marquee tags being used on every other site.
I remember animated GIFs everywhere.
And then I remember Flash replacing it all with (sometimes) beautiful, but totally unaccessible, vector animations.
So, no, I don't long for days that never existed.
I do long for days when people will properly separate content and presentation, so I can enjoy their beautiful presentation if I wish, or replace it with my own style if I prefer.
I'm happy to see fonts being properly supported natively in the browser, rather than faked with images or Flash, because it makes them easier to turn off if I don't like them, but gives competent graphic designers more scope for expression.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29960828</id>
	<title>Re:Brillian idea</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1257279420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yes, it sure is horrible when the users have some say over how content is presented to them. Those damn users should just sit down, shut up, and consume like good little drones!</i></p><p>How is a limited range of fonts and formatting tools letting the user have a say? Besides, the user does still have the final say, unless their browser has poor CSS support and functionality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it sure is horrible when the users have some say over how content is presented to them .
Those damn users should just sit down , shut up , and consume like good little drones ! How is a limited range of fonts and formatting tools letting the user have a say ?
Besides , the user does still have the final say , unless their browser has poor CSS support and functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it sure is horrible when the users have some say over how content is presented to them.
Those damn users should just sit down, shut up, and consume like good little drones!How is a limited range of fonts and formatting tools letting the user have a say?
Besides, the user does still have the final say, unless their browser has poor CSS support and functionality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29961138</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone else long for the days...</title>
	<author>Zoxed</author>
	<datestamp>1257240660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I mean, how many people really need to use fancy fonts to read a web forum, read a news article, or buy an item from a store?</p><p>I agree 100\%, except I do not *long for it*: I *recreate it myself*. Using Firefox and Stylish I: redefine the text to use only my single, preferred font, foreground and background colours, bold style etc. I chop out bits of websites I do not like (big sidebars, headers, footers etc) from my favorite websites. Then I add Flashblock and Adblock. The aim is to make the sites look more similar, then I can flip around different sites without having to re-focus my eyes and concentrate on the content ! (But that is the beauty of the open HTML and CSS: we have a choice !)</p><p>(FYI I do not consider that using a different font, or some odd background colour to be an expression of individualism: that should be expressing in the content!!)</p><p>(Perhaps one day I will get around to packaging the whole thing in to a Firefox extension: perhaps calling ItsAllAboutTheContent<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I mean , how many people really need to use fancy fonts to read a web forum , read a news article , or buy an item from a store ? I agree 100 \ % , except I do not * long for it * : I * recreate it myself * .
Using Firefox and Stylish I : redefine the text to use only my single , preferred font , foreground and background colours , bold style etc .
I chop out bits of websites I do not like ( big sidebars , headers , footers etc ) from my favorite websites .
Then I add Flashblock and Adblock .
The aim is to make the sites look more similar , then I can flip around different sites without having to re-focus my eyes and concentrate on the content !
( But that is the beauty of the open HTML and CSS : we have a choice !
) ( FYI I do not consider that using a different font , or some odd background colour to be an expression of individualism : that should be expressing in the content ! !
) ( Perhaps one day I will get around to packaging the whole thing in to a Firefox extension : perhaps calling ItsAllAboutTheContent : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I mean, how many people really need to use fancy fonts to read a web forum, read a news article, or buy an item from a store?I agree 100\%, except I do not *long for it*: I *recreate it myself*.
Using Firefox and Stylish I: redefine the text to use only my single, preferred font, foreground and background colours, bold style etc.
I chop out bits of websites I do not like (big sidebars, headers, footers etc) from my favorite websites.
Then I add Flashblock and Adblock.
The aim is to make the sites look more similar, then I can flip around different sites without having to re-focus my eyes and concentrate on the content !
(But that is the beauty of the open HTML and CSS: we have a choice !
)(FYI I do not consider that using a different font, or some odd background colour to be an expression of individualism: that should be expressing in the content!!
)(Perhaps one day I will get around to packaging the whole thing in to a Firefox extension: perhaps calling ItsAllAboutTheContent :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956124</id>
	<title>Re:Easier fonts means a lot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257161580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/sifr/" title="mikeindustries.com">They already can</a> [mikeindustries.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They already can [ mikeindustries.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already can [mikeindustries.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955730</id>
	<title>Great, but...</title>
	<author>BenoitRen</author>
	<datestamp>1257159840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's great that we're getting an open for fonts. However, I'm worried that using this, in the future various websites will push users to view their website in their own cool font and be optimised for them. This could break the web's font-agnosticism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's great that we 're getting an open for fonts .
However , I 'm worried that using this , in the future various websites will push users to view their website in their own cool font and be optimised for them .
This could break the web 's font-agnosticism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's great that we're getting an open for fonts.
However, I'm worried that using this, in the future various websites will push users to view their website in their own cool font and be optimised for them.
This could break the web's font-agnosticism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956100</id>
	<title>Re:Light Edition called WOFFLE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257161400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they should have gone with Open Web Type Format.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they should have gone with Open Web Type Format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they should have gone with Open Web Type Format.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955842</id>
	<title>Fix encoding first</title>
	<author>Chelloveck</author>
	<datestamp>1257160320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd be much happier if sites would just get their fscking 'charset' tags set properly. I suppose now we can look forward to smart-quotes mis-encoded in a whole variety of site-specific fonts!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be much happier if sites would just get their fscking 'charset ' tags set properly .
I suppose now we can look forward to smart-quotes mis-encoded in a whole variety of site-specific fonts !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be much happier if sites would just get their fscking 'charset' tags set properly.
I suppose now we can look forward to smart-quotes mis-encoded in a whole variety of site-specific fonts!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956272</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone else long for the days...</title>
	<author>buckhead\_buddy</author>
	<datestamp>1257162240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gopher servers? That's the last time I recall content taking a complete backseat to presentation.</p><p>When a user could properly integrate content from alt.sex.pictures into his hypertext archive of rejected "Penthouse Letters" submissions, the true utility of the html web was clear: the consolidation of location, information, and presentation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gopher servers ?
That 's the last time I recall content taking a complete backseat to presentation.When a user could properly integrate content from alt.sex.pictures into his hypertext archive of rejected " Penthouse Letters " submissions , the true utility of the html web was clear : the consolidation of location , information , and presentation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gopher servers?
That's the last time I recall content taking a complete backseat to presentation.When a user could properly integrate content from alt.sex.pictures into his hypertext archive of rejected "Penthouse Letters" submissions, the true utility of the html web was clear: the consolidation of location, information, and presentation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956862</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone else long for the days...</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1257165840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On my last project at work, we had a requirement to create a number of pages in languages other than English. Some of them (such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigrinya\_language" title="wikipedia.org">Tigrinya</a> [wikipedia.org]) use non-Latin character sets. Without a cross-browser way to provide or embed the appropriate font with/in the page, we had to rely on the user having the font installed on their PC (or the PC they happened to be accessing the site from).</p><p>Now in most cases that's probably true, as most people accessing those pages will be doing so because they speak that language, and so will presumably have the appropriate font. For everyone else, though, the page would look pretty crappy. (Check out the "weird boxes" on the Wikipedia page I link to)</p><p>That's one practical reason why, assuming making your content accessible to as wide an audience as possible is important to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On my last project at work , we had a requirement to create a number of pages in languages other than English .
Some of them ( such as Tigrinya [ wikipedia.org ] ) use non-Latin character sets .
Without a cross-browser way to provide or embed the appropriate font with/in the page , we had to rely on the user having the font installed on their PC ( or the PC they happened to be accessing the site from ) .Now in most cases that 's probably true , as most people accessing those pages will be doing so because they speak that language , and so will presumably have the appropriate font .
For everyone else , though , the page would look pretty crappy .
( Check out the " weird boxes " on the Wikipedia page I link to ) That 's one practical reason why , assuming making your content accessible to as wide an audience as possible is important to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On my last project at work, we had a requirement to create a number of pages in languages other than English.
Some of them (such as Tigrinya [wikipedia.org]) use non-Latin character sets.
Without a cross-browser way to provide or embed the appropriate font with/in the page, we had to rely on the user having the font installed on their PC (or the PC they happened to be accessing the site from).Now in most cases that's probably true, as most people accessing those pages will be doing so because they speak that language, and so will presumably have the appropriate font.
For everyone else, though, the page would look pretty crappy.
(Check out the "weird boxes" on the Wikipedia page I link to)That's one practical reason why, assuming making your content accessible to as wide an audience as possible is important to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956518</id>
	<title>Re:More Fonts for the Internet?</title>
	<author>Vexorian</author>
	<datestamp>1257163740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know what's already possible to do in the current web? Blinking text in comic sans font! Just grab your favorite gif maker and let it render some comic sans on it. Done!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what 's already possible to do in the current web ?
Blinking text in comic sans font !
Just grab your favorite gif maker and let it render some comic sans on it .
Done !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what's already possible to do in the current web?
Blinking text in comic sans font!
Just grab your favorite gif maker and let it render some comic sans on it.
Done!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956554</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone else long for the days...</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1257163980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone else long for the days when the web was more about content than fancy presentation?</p></div><p>Most people don't surf with Lynx anymore (maybe RMS does...). The visual presentation <i>is part of</i> the content because the Web is <i>now (today, the current era)</i> a <b>visual</b> media.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone else long for the days when the web was more about content than fancy presentation ? Most people do n't surf with Lynx anymore ( maybe RMS does... ) .
The visual presentation is part of the content because the Web is now ( today , the current era ) a visual media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone else long for the days when the web was more about content than fancy presentation?Most people don't surf with Lynx anymore (maybe RMS does...).
The visual presentation is part of the content because the Web is now (today, the current era) a visual media.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955680</id>
	<title>Easier fonts means a lot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257159660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>For example, just imagine a world where every website can easily implement Comic Sans, even if the end user has uninstalled the font.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , just imagine a world where every website can easily implement Comic Sans , even if the end user has uninstalled the font .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, just imagine a world where every website can easily implement Comic Sans, even if the end user has uninstalled the font.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956216</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone else long for the days...</title>
	<author>Pulzar</author>
	<datestamp>1257162000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's a nice idea if universal buy-in could be obtained, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... why?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, nice presentation *is* important. Think of buttons, headings, etc... not plain text. It is all done using graphics right now, meaning you require more bandwidth to present the data, and you have redundancy in alt tags. If one has a wider variety of fonts available, one could produce very nice looking pages using text only, which is better for everybody.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a nice idea if universal buy-in could be obtained , but ... why ? : - ) Well , nice presentation * is * important .
Think of buttons , headings , etc... not plain text .
It is all done using graphics right now , meaning you require more bandwidth to present the data , and you have redundancy in alt tags .
If one has a wider variety of fonts available , one could produce very nice looking pages using text only , which is better for everybody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a nice idea if universal buy-in could be obtained, but ... why? :-)Well, nice presentation *is* important.
Think of buttons, headings, etc... not plain text.
It is all done using graphics right now, meaning you require more bandwidth to present the data, and you have redundancy in alt tags.
If one has a wider variety of fonts available, one could produce very nice looking pages using text only, which is better for everybody.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955902</id>
	<title>Re:Easier fonts means a lot!</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1257160500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can do that already with animated gifs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can do that already with animated gifs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can do that already with animated gifs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29963718</id>
	<title>Re:How long...</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1257265320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so... font-family !important?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so... font-family ! important ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so... font-family !important?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874</id>
	<title>Does anyone else long for the days...</title>
	<author>Richard Steiner</author>
	<datestamp>1257160380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...when the web was more about content than fancy presentation?</p><p>I mean, how many people really need to use fancy fonts to read a web forum, read a news article, or buy an item from a store?</p><p>It's a nice idea if universal buy-in could be obtained, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... why?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...when the web was more about content than fancy presentation ? I mean , how many people really need to use fancy fonts to read a web forum , read a news article , or buy an item from a store ? It 's a nice idea if universal buy-in could be obtained , but ... why ? : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...when the web was more about content than fancy presentation?I mean, how many people really need to use fancy fonts to read a web forum, read a news article, or buy an item from a store?It's a nice idea if universal buy-in could be obtained, but ... why? :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955814</id>
	<title>Re:How long...</title>
	<author>javaman235</author>
	<datestamp>1257160200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...before Microsoft embraces and extends this format?</i></p><p>I hope so, actually. So long as the core works on both and its open, I'll be happy. Web designers have been waiting for this for years, but its going nowhere without IE support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...before Microsoft embraces and extends this format ? I hope so , actually .
So long as the core works on both and its open , I 'll be happy .
Web designers have been waiting for this for years , but its going nowhere without IE support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...before Microsoft embraces and extends this format?I hope so, actually.
So long as the core works on both and its open, I'll be happy.
Web designers have been waiting for this for years, but its going nowhere without IE support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956244</id>
	<title>Re:Easier fonts means a lot!</title>
	<author>lastchance\_000</author>
	<datestamp>1257162120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think most sites will compete to see how many different fonts they can cram on one page. I'm not sure where I'd look to find them, now that GeoCities is shut down. Maybe Myspace?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think most sites will compete to see how many different fonts they can cram on one page .
I 'm not sure where I 'd look to find them , now that GeoCities is shut down .
Maybe Myspace ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think most sites will compete to see how many different fonts they can cram on one page.
I'm not sure where I'd look to find them, now that GeoCities is shut down.
Maybe Myspace?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29958304</id>
	<title>Lets you and him fight</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1257172680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, in this corner we have Embedded Open Type which has been supported by the last four versions of IE, but little used because no one wants to use features tied to one browser.</p><p>In the other corner, we have the challenger, WOFF, the new kid in town.</p><p>Will one of them win or will they battle to a draw, leaving web designers with a choice between using web-safe fonts and the work of supporting two standards. In the latter case, we'll be stuck with boring typography for years.</p><p>EOT is on its way through W3C standardization. WOFF is still a prototype that smells like yet another "anything but Microsoft" ploy.
Let's hope that Microsoft decides to humour them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , in this corner we have Embedded Open Type which has been supported by the last four versions of IE , but little used because no one wants to use features tied to one browser.In the other corner , we have the challenger , WOFF , the new kid in town.Will one of them win or will they battle to a draw , leaving web designers with a choice between using web-safe fonts and the work of supporting two standards .
In the latter case , we 'll be stuck with boring typography for years.EOT is on its way through W3C standardization .
WOFF is still a prototype that smells like yet another " anything but Microsoft " ploy .
Let 's hope that Microsoft decides to humour them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, in this corner we have Embedded Open Type which has been supported by the last four versions of IE, but little used because no one wants to use features tied to one browser.In the other corner, we have the challenger, WOFF, the new kid in town.Will one of them win or will they battle to a draw, leaving web designers with a choice between using web-safe fonts and the work of supporting two standards.
In the latter case, we'll be stuck with boring typography for years.EOT is on its way through W3C standardization.
WOFF is still a prototype that smells like yet another "anything but Microsoft" ploy.
Let's hope that Microsoft decides to humour them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957076</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone else long for the days...</title>
	<author>farnsworth</author>
	<datestamp>1257167160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...when the web was more about content than fancy presentation?</p></div><p>
I believe that's the point of why this is needed.  Currently, if an author wants or needs precise layout with specific fonts, they pretty much have to use flash or images.  This hurts accessibility to content.  For example, <a href="http://sethgodin.com/" title="sethgodin.com">Seth Godin's site</a> [sethgodin.com] has plenty of content, but no text.  You could argue that he's doing it wrong, and he shouldn't be feeding us binary images when he's trying to convey words.  On the other hand, you could argue that his site is really nice looking, conveys his message really well, and it's a pity that it's impossible to do this without resorting to such hacks that make the text un-ctrl-f'able, or unreadable by screen readers.
</p><p>
I believe the point of WOFF is to <em>add</em> semantic information to pages that authors want to appear in a very specific way, and that's a good thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...when the web was more about content than fancy presentation ?
I believe that 's the point of why this is needed .
Currently , if an author wants or needs precise layout with specific fonts , they pretty much have to use flash or images .
This hurts accessibility to content .
For example , Seth Godin 's site [ sethgodin.com ] has plenty of content , but no text .
You could argue that he 's doing it wrong , and he should n't be feeding us binary images when he 's trying to convey words .
On the other hand , you could argue that his site is really nice looking , conveys his message really well , and it 's a pity that it 's impossible to do this without resorting to such hacks that make the text un-ctrl-f'able , or unreadable by screen readers .
I believe the point of WOFF is to add semantic information to pages that authors want to appear in a very specific way , and that 's a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...when the web was more about content than fancy presentation?
I believe that's the point of why this is needed.
Currently, if an author wants or needs precise layout with specific fonts, they pretty much have to use flash or images.
This hurts accessibility to content.
For example, Seth Godin's site [sethgodin.com] has plenty of content, but no text.
You could argue that he's doing it wrong, and he shouldn't be feeding us binary images when he's trying to convey words.
On the other hand, you could argue that his site is really nice looking, conveys his message really well, and it's a pity that it's impossible to do this without resorting to such hacks that make the text un-ctrl-f'able, or unreadable by screen readers.
I believe the point of WOFF is to add semantic information to pages that authors want to appear in a very specific way, and that's a good thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956080</id>
	<title>Re:Brillian idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257161280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Control over fonts has always been a limit with the web design</p></div><p>Yes, it sure is horrible when the users have some say over how content is presented to them.  Those damn users should just sit down, shut up, and consume like good little drones!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd love to use cutting edge fonts [...]</p></div><p>I'd love to avoid sites you design at all costs!  At least until I get a javascript-enabled version of lynx working.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Actually, I'm making a bit of an unfair judgment here.  I'm presuming that you don't know how to design a site that <em>gracefully</em> degrades but still works properly when a user has a browser with missing <em>or deliberately disabled</em> features.  But you know what they say: it's only 99.99\% of web designers that make the rest look bad!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Control over fonts has always been a limit with the web designYes , it sure is horrible when the users have some say over how content is presented to them .
Those damn users should just sit down , shut up , and consume like good little drones ! I 'd love to use cutting edge fonts [ ... ] I 'd love to avoid sites you design at all costs !
At least until I get a javascript-enabled version of lynx working .
: ) Actually , I 'm making a bit of an unfair judgment here .
I 'm presuming that you do n't know how to design a site that gracefully degrades but still works properly when a user has a browser with missing or deliberately disabled features .
But you know what they say : it 's only 99.99 \ % of web designers that make the rest look bad !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Control over fonts has always been a limit with the web designYes, it sure is horrible when the users have some say over how content is presented to them.
Those damn users should just sit down, shut up, and consume like good little drones!I'd love to use cutting edge fonts [...]I'd love to avoid sites you design at all costs!
At least until I get a javascript-enabled version of lynx working.
:)Actually, I'm making a bit of an unfair judgment here.
I'm presuming that you don't know how to design a site that gracefully degrades but still works properly when a user has a browser with missing or deliberately disabled features.
But you know what they say: it's only 99.99\% of web designers that make the rest look bad!
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956490</id>
	<title>The Real Issue</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1257163560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How long before Microsoft embraces and extends this format?</p></div><p>The problem here is not that MS will extend/embrace, but that they will ignore. If IE does not implement this, it will be a long long time before serious Web designers / developers pay attention to it. The sad but simple fact: IE is still has the market share.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long before Microsoft embraces and extends this format ? The problem here is not that MS will extend/embrace , but that they will ignore .
If IE does not implement this , it will be a long long time before serious Web designers / developers pay attention to it .
The sad but simple fact : IE is still has the market share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long before Microsoft embraces and extends this format?The problem here is not that MS will extend/embrace, but that they will ignore.
If IE does not implement this, it will be a long long time before serious Web designers / developers pay attention to it.
The sad but simple fact: IE is still has the market share.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966396</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone else long for the days...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257277020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? You mean the days of Flash intros, pattern images as backgrounds, blink tags, neon color schemes and animated GIFs?? Do you mean THOSE same days in that same reality that I mean? ^^</p><p>Sorry, but your memories of such a time must be purely self-induced*, as they never existed. Even in times of pure ASCII files, people layouted the hell out of them. ^^</p><p>\_\_\_<br>* Yes, we humans have the abilities to make ourselves think that we know something for a fact, when in reality, we completely made it up. There were <em>very</em> interesting studies about this. And if you know how to use those abilities on others, you can become very very powerful!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
You mean the days of Flash intros , pattern images as backgrounds , blink tags , neon color schemes and animated GIFs ? ?
Do you mean THOSE same days in that same reality that I mean ?
^ ^ Sorry , but your memories of such a time must be purely self-induced * , as they never existed .
Even in times of pure ASCII files , people layouted the hell out of them .
^ ^ \ _ \ _ \ _ * Yes , we humans have the abilities to make ourselves think that we know something for a fact , when in reality , we completely made it up .
There were very interesting studies about this .
And if you know how to use those abilities on others , you can become very very powerful !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
You mean the days of Flash intros, pattern images as backgrounds, blink tags, neon color schemes and animated GIFs??
Do you mean THOSE same days in that same reality that I mean?
^^Sorry, but your memories of such a time must be purely self-induced*, as they never existed.
Even in times of pure ASCII files, people layouted the hell out of them.
^^\_\_\_* Yes, we humans have the abilities to make ourselves think that we know something for a fact, when in reality, we completely made it up.
There were very interesting studies about this.
And if you know how to use those abilities on others, you can become very very powerful!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955886</id>
	<title>As long as:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257160500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as firefox gives me a way to ignore all this, I am fine with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as firefox gives me a way to ignore all this , I am fine with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as firefox gives me a way to ignore all this, I am fine with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29964790</id>
	<title>Re:Zapf Chancery is the devil's handwork.</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1257269760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The day youtube allows fonts in their comments is the day I quit the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The day youtube allows fonts in their comments is the day I quit the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The day youtube allows fonts in their comments is the day I quit the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956898</id>
	<title>This could also impact Flash...</title>
	<author>Jude T. Obscure</author>
	<datestamp>1257166080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Twice now I have been forced to develop a website in Flash when the only reason the client would not accept standards-compliant CSS pages was the font limitations. Not a moment too soon, I say.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Twice now I have been forced to develop a website in Flash when the only reason the client would not accept standards-compliant CSS pages was the font limitations .
Not a moment too soon , I say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Twice now I have been forced to develop a website in Flash when the only reason the client would not accept standards-compliant CSS pages was the font limitations.
Not a moment too soon, I say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957160</id>
	<title>Re:What about the foundries?</title>
	<author>PyroMosh</author>
	<datestamp>1257167460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you say that designing a font is more, or less work than the following examples:</p><ol><li>Designing and programming a graphics editing application</li><li>Designing and programming a web browser and it's associated rendering engine(s) and interpreter(s)</li><li>Designing and programming a graphics library for programming and presentation of 2d and 2d computer graphics</li><li>Designing and programming an FTP client</li><li>Designing and programming a file archiver to work with standards such as zip, rar, or 7z format</li><li>Designing and programming an operating system Kernel</li></ol><p>Because if you'd say that font designing is "too hard for open source" then those must all be easier, since open source has successfully done all of them.</p><p>That said, I'm not so sure how much we *need* another font format.  Especially given that OpenType is an ISO standard, and has been for years.  Just because it was developed by Microsoft and Adobe, doesn't mean it's not worth considering.</p><p>This is to say nothing of momentum.  Look at MP3 vs OOG.  Look at raster graphics formats.  You basically have GIF (antiquated) JPEG for photos and other applications where some compression lossyness is acceptable, and TIFF and PNG fragmenting the lossless raster market depending on application.  Better formats are available.  But the entrenched nature of the popular formats makes the up side vs the down side of using other formats a loosing proposition.  Yes, you can design apps that will let a user choose between MP3 *or* OOG.  or OpenType *or* WOFF  But what's the incentive for content producers, really?</p><p>If there were a format that solves the raster graphics problem, and offered a unified solution that had the best of all worlds:  The detail of TIFF, alpha channel support of PNG, was lossless like PNG and TIFF, compressed as small or smaller than JPEG, and had the animation support of GIF... I doubt it would be used much.  Because those other formats dominate the market and it's very, very tough to "steer the Titanic" so to speak.</p><p>This new font format doesn't seem to set the world on fire with what it brings to the table.  It will be relegated to the same place that OOG is: purists who will only use The Best(TM), and the open source faithful who use open source tools out of dogmatic devotion, regardless of quality.</p><p>This is just a tiny bit more bloat to add to the next upgrade cycle on all the major browsers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you say that designing a font is more , or less work than the following examples : Designing and programming a graphics editing applicationDesigning and programming a web browser and it 's associated rendering engine ( s ) and interpreter ( s ) Designing and programming a graphics library for programming and presentation of 2d and 2d computer graphicsDesigning and programming an FTP clientDesigning and programming a file archiver to work with standards such as zip , rar , or 7z formatDesigning and programming an operating system KernelBecause if you 'd say that font designing is " too hard for open source " then those must all be easier , since open source has successfully done all of them.That said , I 'm not so sure how much we * need * another font format .
Especially given that OpenType is an ISO standard , and has been for years .
Just because it was developed by Microsoft and Adobe , does n't mean it 's not worth considering.This is to say nothing of momentum .
Look at MP3 vs OOG .
Look at raster graphics formats .
You basically have GIF ( antiquated ) JPEG for photos and other applications where some compression lossyness is acceptable , and TIFF and PNG fragmenting the lossless raster market depending on application .
Better formats are available .
But the entrenched nature of the popular formats makes the up side vs the down side of using other formats a loosing proposition .
Yes , you can design apps that will let a user choose between MP3 * or * OOG .
or OpenType * or * WOFF But what 's the incentive for content producers , really ? If there were a format that solves the raster graphics problem , and offered a unified solution that had the best of all worlds : The detail of TIFF , alpha channel support of PNG , was lossless like PNG and TIFF , compressed as small or smaller than JPEG , and had the animation support of GIF... I doubt it would be used much .
Because those other formats dominate the market and it 's very , very tough to " steer the Titanic " so to speak.This new font format does n't seem to set the world on fire with what it brings to the table .
It will be relegated to the same place that OOG is : purists who will only use The Best ( TM ) , and the open source faithful who use open source tools out of dogmatic devotion , regardless of quality.This is just a tiny bit more bloat to add to the next upgrade cycle on all the major browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you say that designing a font is more, or less work than the following examples:Designing and programming a graphics editing applicationDesigning and programming a web browser and it's associated rendering engine(s) and interpreter(s)Designing and programming a graphics library for programming and presentation of 2d and 2d computer graphicsDesigning and programming an FTP clientDesigning and programming a file archiver to work with standards such as zip, rar, or 7z formatDesigning and programming an operating system KernelBecause if you'd say that font designing is "too hard for open source" then those must all be easier, since open source has successfully done all of them.That said, I'm not so sure how much we *need* another font format.
Especially given that OpenType is an ISO standard, and has been for years.
Just because it was developed by Microsoft and Adobe, doesn't mean it's not worth considering.This is to say nothing of momentum.
Look at MP3 vs OOG.
Look at raster graphics formats.
You basically have GIF (antiquated) JPEG for photos and other applications where some compression lossyness is acceptable, and TIFF and PNG fragmenting the lossless raster market depending on application.
Better formats are available.
But the entrenched nature of the popular formats makes the up side vs the down side of using other formats a loosing proposition.
Yes, you can design apps that will let a user choose between MP3 *or* OOG.
or OpenType *or* WOFF  But what's the incentive for content producers, really?If there were a format that solves the raster graphics problem, and offered a unified solution that had the best of all worlds:  The detail of TIFF, alpha channel support of PNG, was lossless like PNG and TIFF, compressed as small or smaller than JPEG, and had the animation support of GIF... I doubt it would be used much.
Because those other formats dominate the market and it's very, very tough to "steer the Titanic" so to speak.This new font format doesn't seem to set the world on fire with what it brings to the table.
It will be relegated to the same place that OOG is: purists who will only use The Best(TM), and the open source faithful who use open source tools out of dogmatic devotion, regardless of quality.This is just a tiny bit more bloat to add to the next upgrade cycle on all the major browsers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966698</id>
	<title>Fink Heavy by House Industries</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1257278520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because if you'd say that font designing is "too hard for open source" then those must all be easier, since open source has successfully done all of them.</p></div><p>
Free software communities have shown the ability to create <em>utilitarian</em> works of high quality. DejaVu fonts, which grew out of the Vera project by Bitstream, are open source utilitarian fonts.
</p><p>
But not all fonts are utilitarian, and a lot of web publishers want specific branding using specific artistic typefaces. For instance, the logo of Nintendo's video game <i>Animal Crossing</i> uses the font Fink Heavy. This is an uneven slab-serif font from the <a href="http://www.houseind.com/fonts/ratfinkfonts/viewfonts" title="houseind.com">Rat Fink Fonts pack</a> [houseind.com] by House Industries, one of the foundries mentioned in the article. If Nintendo could suggest to browsers that headline elements (h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6) on animal-crossing.com SHOULD use Fink Heavy, and the CSS specified a House Industries-approved method of putting the font into the browser, that would make the site's branding more consistent. The point of WOFF is that the foundries are on board.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because if you 'd say that font designing is " too hard for open source " then those must all be easier , since open source has successfully done all of them .
Free software communities have shown the ability to create utilitarian works of high quality .
DejaVu fonts , which grew out of the Vera project by Bitstream , are open source utilitarian fonts .
But not all fonts are utilitarian , and a lot of web publishers want specific branding using specific artistic typefaces .
For instance , the logo of Nintendo 's video game Animal Crossing uses the font Fink Heavy .
This is an uneven slab-serif font from the Rat Fink Fonts pack [ houseind.com ] by House Industries , one of the foundries mentioned in the article .
If Nintendo could suggest to browsers that headline elements ( h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 ) on animal-crossing.com SHOULD use Fink Heavy , and the CSS specified a House Industries-approved method of putting the font into the browser , that would make the site 's branding more consistent .
The point of WOFF is that the foundries are on board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because if you'd say that font designing is "too hard for open source" then those must all be easier, since open source has successfully done all of them.
Free software communities have shown the ability to create utilitarian works of high quality.
DejaVu fonts, which grew out of the Vera project by Bitstream, are open source utilitarian fonts.
But not all fonts are utilitarian, and a lot of web publishers want specific branding using specific artistic typefaces.
For instance, the logo of Nintendo's video game Animal Crossing uses the font Fink Heavy.
This is an uneven slab-serif font from the Rat Fink Fonts pack [houseind.com] by House Industries, one of the foundries mentioned in the article.
If Nintendo could suggest to browsers that headline elements (h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6) on animal-crossing.com SHOULD use Fink Heavy, and the CSS specified a House Industries-approved method of putting the font into the browser, that would make the site's branding more consistent.
The point of WOFF is that the foundries are on board.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29963126</id>
	<title>Re:Must be some typography geeks here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257261960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://typophile.com/node/58166" title="typophile.com" rel="nofollow">http://typophile.com/node/58166</a> [typophile.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //typophile.com/node/58166 [ typophile.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://typophile.com/node/58166 [typophile.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29961424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956374</id>
	<title>knowing is half the battle</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1257162840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I know what to disable first in Firefox 3.6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I know what to disable first in Firefox 3.6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I know what to disable first in Firefox 3.6.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956946</id>
	<title>Re:Brillian idea</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1257166320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, I'm making a bit of an unfair judgment here. I'm presuming that you don't know how to design a site that gracefully degrades but still works properly when a user has a browser with missing or deliberately disabled features. But you know what they say: it's only 99.99\% of web designers that make the rest look bad!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><p>This, a thousand times this. As much as I dislike the idea by itself, having certain control over fonts in the web isn't a bad thing by itself, it helps make it prettier and more readable when done correctly. The problems start, however, at the very point where the website stops working correctly because the user had the "arrogance" of replacing the font with his own, or the "nerve" to press Ctrl++ to try and make the text bigger.</p><p>The two most important words for anyone doing web design and/or development are <b>degrade gracefully</b>. They should be hammered into the skull of every new student, branded with fire on their arses, and giving out 100 pages of the phrase hand-written in cursive should be mandatory before graduation.</p><p>Use Silverlight to show an h264-encoded 1080p introductory video to visitors of your website if you want, write the entire menu in a client-side version of lolcode if you wish and use CSS features that won't be implemented by anyone before the year 2020 to make it prettier if you must, as long as you <b>degrade gracefully</b> and show something *useful* to people who don't have support for your dearest gizmo.</p><p>Seriously. Once desktop computers stop being the norm for web browsing, you and your boss will thank me for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I 'm making a bit of an unfair judgment here .
I 'm presuming that you do n't know how to design a site that gracefully degrades but still works properly when a user has a browser with missing or deliberately disabled features .
But you know what they say : it 's only 99.99 \ % of web designers that make the rest look bad !
: ) This , a thousand times this .
As much as I dislike the idea by itself , having certain control over fonts in the web is n't a bad thing by itself , it helps make it prettier and more readable when done correctly .
The problems start , however , at the very point where the website stops working correctly because the user had the " arrogance " of replacing the font with his own , or the " nerve " to press Ctrl + + to try and make the text bigger.The two most important words for anyone doing web design and/or development are degrade gracefully .
They should be hammered into the skull of every new student , branded with fire on their arses , and giving out 100 pages of the phrase hand-written in cursive should be mandatory before graduation.Use Silverlight to show an h264-encoded 1080p introductory video to visitors of your website if you want , write the entire menu in a client-side version of lolcode if you wish and use CSS features that wo n't be implemented by anyone before the year 2020 to make it prettier if you must , as long as you degrade gracefully and show something * useful * to people who do n't have support for your dearest gizmo.Seriously .
Once desktop computers stop being the norm for web browsing , you and your boss will thank me for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I'm making a bit of an unfair judgment here.
I'm presuming that you don't know how to design a site that gracefully degrades but still works properly when a user has a browser with missing or deliberately disabled features.
But you know what they say: it's only 99.99\% of web designers that make the rest look bad!
:)This, a thousand times this.
As much as I dislike the idea by itself, having certain control over fonts in the web isn't a bad thing by itself, it helps make it prettier and more readable when done correctly.
The problems start, however, at the very point where the website stops working correctly because the user had the "arrogance" of replacing the font with his own, or the "nerve" to press Ctrl++ to try and make the text bigger.The two most important words for anyone doing web design and/or development are degrade gracefully.
They should be hammered into the skull of every new student, branded with fire on their arses, and giving out 100 pages of the phrase hand-written in cursive should be mandatory before graduation.Use Silverlight to show an h264-encoded 1080p introductory video to visitors of your website if you want, write the entire menu in a client-side version of lolcode if you wish and use CSS features that won't be implemented by anyone before the year 2020 to make it prettier if you must, as long as you degrade gracefully and show something *useful* to people who don't have support for your dearest gizmo.Seriously.
Once desktop computers stop being the norm for web browsing, you and your boss will thank me for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966152</id>
	<title>Re:Light Edition called WOFFLE</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257275820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wait for ihasahotdog.com to offer their own format: WOOF!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wait for ihasahotdog.com to offer their own format : WOOF !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wait for ihasahotdog.com to offer their own format: WOOF!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955782</id>
	<title>Brillian idea</title>
	<author>Openstandards.net</author>
	<datestamp>1257160080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Control over fonts has always been a limit with the web design and I believe this could help overcome it, creating an important improvement for the web.  I'm interested in understanding how web browsers will handle font updates across operating systems, whether or not fonts will be added system wide or just for the browser, and perhaps just for the user.

I'd love to use cutting edge fonts like urban fonts (http://www.urbanfonts.com) without having to turn them into GIFs before including in web content.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Control over fonts has always been a limit with the web design and I believe this could help overcome it , creating an important improvement for the web .
I 'm interested in understanding how web browsers will handle font updates across operating systems , whether or not fonts will be added system wide or just for the browser , and perhaps just for the user .
I 'd love to use cutting edge fonts like urban fonts ( http : //www.urbanfonts.com ) without having to turn them into GIFs before including in web content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Control over fonts has always been a limit with the web design and I believe this could help overcome it, creating an important improvement for the web.
I'm interested in understanding how web browsers will handle font updates across operating systems, whether or not fonts will be added system wide or just for the browser, and perhaps just for the user.
I'd love to use cutting edge fonts like urban fonts (http://www.urbanfonts.com) without having to turn them into GIFs before including in web content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29968094</id>
	<title>Re:What about the foundries?</title>
	<author>Haeleth</author>
	<datestamp>1257242340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a heck of a lot of text for someone who clearly hasn't bothered to find out what this is about.</p><blockquote><div><p>Would you say that designing a font is more, or less work than the following examples:</p></div></blockquote><p>You're comparing apples and tractors.  Type design has very little in common with programming.  The open source community has a strong track record in programming, but a very poor track record in creative products.</p><p>There's a reason why the fonts on a typical Linux distribution include <b>Bitstream</b> Vera and Charter, <b>URW</b> Nimbus Sans/Roman, <b>Bigelow &amp; Holmes</b> Luxi, and of course the Liberation fonts procured by Red Hat from <b>Ascender Corp</b>.  And it's not because the "community" is good at making fonts.</p><blockquote><div><p>That said, I'm not so sure how much we *need* another font format. Especially given that OpenType is an ISO standard, and has been for years. Just because it was developed by Microsoft and Adobe, doesn't mean it's not worth considering.</p></div></blockquote><p>If you'd bothered to read the WOFF specification, you'd have found that WOFF <i>is</i> OpenType.  Or rather, a minor extension of OpenType to provide some additional metadata and allow for compression of the font data.</p><p>You seem to be under the impression that this is an exercise in reinventing the wheel and replacing proprietary formats with open formats.  It isn't.  It's an exercise in building on the existing standards to provide extensions that make them better-adapted for use in a specific domain.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a heck of a lot of text for someone who clearly has n't bothered to find out what this is about.Would you say that designing a font is more , or less work than the following examples : You 're comparing apples and tractors .
Type design has very little in common with programming .
The open source community has a strong track record in programming , but a very poor track record in creative products.There 's a reason why the fonts on a typical Linux distribution include Bitstream Vera and Charter , URW Nimbus Sans/Roman , Bigelow &amp; Holmes Luxi , and of course the Liberation fonts procured by Red Hat from Ascender Corp. And it 's not because the " community " is good at making fonts.That said , I 'm not so sure how much we * need * another font format .
Especially given that OpenType is an ISO standard , and has been for years .
Just because it was developed by Microsoft and Adobe , does n't mean it 's not worth considering.If you 'd bothered to read the WOFF specification , you 'd have found that WOFF is OpenType .
Or rather , a minor extension of OpenType to provide some additional metadata and allow for compression of the font data.You seem to be under the impression that this is an exercise in reinventing the wheel and replacing proprietary formats with open formats .
It is n't .
It 's an exercise in building on the existing standards to provide extensions that make them better-adapted for use in a specific domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a heck of a lot of text for someone who clearly hasn't bothered to find out what this is about.Would you say that designing a font is more, or less work than the following examples:You're comparing apples and tractors.
Type design has very little in common with programming.
The open source community has a strong track record in programming, but a very poor track record in creative products.There's a reason why the fonts on a typical Linux distribution include Bitstream Vera and Charter, URW Nimbus Sans/Roman, Bigelow &amp; Holmes Luxi, and of course the Liberation fonts procured by Red Hat from Ascender Corp.  And it's not because the "community" is good at making fonts.That said, I'm not so sure how much we *need* another font format.
Especially given that OpenType is an ISO standard, and has been for years.
Just because it was developed by Microsoft and Adobe, doesn't mean it's not worth considering.If you'd bothered to read the WOFF specification, you'd have found that WOFF is OpenType.
Or rather, a minor extension of OpenType to provide some additional metadata and allow for compression of the font data.You seem to be under the impression that this is an exercise in reinventing the wheel and replacing proprietary formats with open formats.
It isn't.
It's an exercise in building on the existing standards to provide extensions that make them better-adapted for use in a specific domain.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956654</id>
	<title>Re:format does not matter, it's about download lim</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257164520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The important part is that WOFF restricts where the font can be linked to. While e.g. a truetype font can be referenced from anywhere with CSS, a WOFF font has to be stored on the same site as the web page/css.</p></div></blockquote><p>Thats trivial to fix, add an option to not allow fonts that aren't on the site itself.  I'm not sure why the browser can selectively do it for these fonts but not for CSS fonts.  Any technical reason you come up with is going to be obviously bunk.</p><p>You argue that this is important for font foundries.  Well, that in and of itself is the first problem, font foundries are ridiculous and have more retarded licensing than MS.  Second, how long do you think its going to take for an extension to come out that works around it.  You can't control this, the idea that the file format can is just silly when you're talking about implementing it in an OSS package.</p><p>You started off by saying its not really a new format, just an OT wrapper, and then you follow up with 'its a new format' so it doesn't take along the baggage.  This is contridictor, either its based on opentype and brings the baggage or it isn't, pick one.</p><p>There is no copy protection in OSS software, if you have the code its trivial to change it and work around it.  Are you saying that Mozilla is going to promote using a binary blob in their browser?</p><p>You haven't provided any reason that this font format is different than what we already have, and you're completely ignoring the SVG format which is actually a fully open standard, and is already supported if you properly support SVGs.  Of course no one does at the moment, but thats another story.  I find it hard to believe that a new format will be better supported when SVG support is in the state it is.</p><p>A new font technology is going to bring fonts with increased readability?  WTF?  I've yet to see anyone use a font better than the old reliables included in Windows and Mac OS.  I've seen plenty of fonts that are about as far from readable as you can get and still read them because they were made by some random person with no clue about whats important in typography.  How is a new format going to change any existing problem?  Its not.</p><p>How the hell did you get modded informative while talking in circles, contridicting yourself multiple times along the way?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The important part is that WOFF restricts where the font can be linked to .
While e.g .
a truetype font can be referenced from anywhere with CSS , a WOFF font has to be stored on the same site as the web page/css.Thats trivial to fix , add an option to not allow fonts that are n't on the site itself .
I 'm not sure why the browser can selectively do it for these fonts but not for CSS fonts .
Any technical reason you come up with is going to be obviously bunk.You argue that this is important for font foundries .
Well , that in and of itself is the first problem , font foundries are ridiculous and have more retarded licensing than MS. Second , how long do you think its going to take for an extension to come out that works around it .
You ca n't control this , the idea that the file format can is just silly when you 're talking about implementing it in an OSS package.You started off by saying its not really a new format , just an OT wrapper , and then you follow up with 'its a new format ' so it does n't take along the baggage .
This is contridictor , either its based on opentype and brings the baggage or it is n't , pick one.There is no copy protection in OSS software , if you have the code its trivial to change it and work around it .
Are you saying that Mozilla is going to promote using a binary blob in their browser ? You have n't provided any reason that this font format is different than what we already have , and you 're completely ignoring the SVG format which is actually a fully open standard , and is already supported if you properly support SVGs .
Of course no one does at the moment , but thats another story .
I find it hard to believe that a new format will be better supported when SVG support is in the state it is.A new font technology is going to bring fonts with increased readability ?
WTF ? I 've yet to see anyone use a font better than the old reliables included in Windows and Mac OS .
I 've seen plenty of fonts that are about as far from readable as you can get and still read them because they were made by some random person with no clue about whats important in typography .
How is a new format going to change any existing problem ?
Its not.How the hell did you get modded informative while talking in circles , contridicting yourself multiple times along the way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The important part is that WOFF restricts where the font can be linked to.
While e.g.
a truetype font can be referenced from anywhere with CSS, a WOFF font has to be stored on the same site as the web page/css.Thats trivial to fix, add an option to not allow fonts that aren't on the site itself.
I'm not sure why the browser can selectively do it for these fonts but not for CSS fonts.
Any technical reason you come up with is going to be obviously bunk.You argue that this is important for font foundries.
Well, that in and of itself is the first problem, font foundries are ridiculous and have more retarded licensing than MS.  Second, how long do you think its going to take for an extension to come out that works around it.
You can't control this, the idea that the file format can is just silly when you're talking about implementing it in an OSS package.You started off by saying its not really a new format, just an OT wrapper, and then you follow up with 'its a new format' so it doesn't take along the baggage.
This is contridictor, either its based on opentype and brings the baggage or it isn't, pick one.There is no copy protection in OSS software, if you have the code its trivial to change it and work around it.
Are you saying that Mozilla is going to promote using a binary blob in their browser?You haven't provided any reason that this font format is different than what we already have, and you're completely ignoring the SVG format which is actually a fully open standard, and is already supported if you properly support SVGs.
Of course no one does at the moment, but thats another story.
I find it hard to believe that a new format will be better supported when SVG support is in the state it is.A new font technology is going to bring fonts with increased readability?
WTF?  I've yet to see anyone use a font better than the old reliables included in Windows and Mac OS.
I've seen plenty of fonts that are about as far from readable as you can get and still read them because they were made by some random person with no clue about whats important in typography.
How is a new format going to change any existing problem?
Its not.How the hell did you get modded informative while talking in circles, contridicting yourself multiple times along the way?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966478</id>
	<title>Re:format does not matter, it's about download lim</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257277440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot that this same-domain rule also protects you from the font hoster changing the font to something that could harm your site. Like making the title of your site look like something insulting or gross.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot that this same-domain rule also protects you from the font hoster changing the font to something that could harm your site .
Like making the title of your site look like something insulting or gross .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot that this same-domain rule also protects you from the font hoster changing the font to something that could harm your site.
Like making the title of your site look like something insulting or gross.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29962692</id>
	<title>Re:What about the foundries?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1257259380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Why is this even news? It's all well and good for a browser vendor to endorse<br>&gt; a font format, but it's absolutely useless if no foundries will release fonts<br>&gt; in this format.</p><p>According to the article some font sellers are already supporting it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why is this even news ?
It 's all well and good for a browser vendor to endorse &gt; a font format , but it 's absolutely useless if no foundries will release fonts &gt; in this format.According to the article some font sellers are already supporting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Why is this even news?
It's all well and good for a browser vendor to endorse&gt; a font format, but it's absolutely useless if no foundries will release fonts&gt; in this format.According to the article some font sellers are already supporting it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29959532</id>
	<title>Re:format does not matter, it's about download lim</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1257180780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While e.g. a truetype font can be referenced from anywhere with CSS, a WOFF font has to be stored on the same site as the web page/css.</p></div><p>That's not actually true. The default setting in Firefox is going to be disallow cross-site font hosting, but, from the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The ability to load fonts from other domains can be enabled by a server using Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS).</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While e.g .
a truetype font can be referenced from anywhere with CSS , a WOFF font has to be stored on the same site as the web page/css.That 's not actually true .
The default setting in Firefox is going to be disallow cross-site font hosting , but , from the article : The ability to load fonts from other domains can be enabled by a server using Cross-Origin Resource Sharing ( CORS ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While e.g.
a truetype font can be referenced from anywhere with CSS, a WOFF font has to be stored on the same site as the web page/css.That's not actually true.
The default setting in Firefox is going to be disallow cross-site font hosting, but, from the article:The ability to load fonts from other domains can be enabled by a server using Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955772</id>
	<title>Light Edition called WOFFLE</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1257160020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then it'll be accurate to describe the content of all major web sites as a bunch of WOFFLE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then it 'll be accurate to describe the content of all major web sites as a bunch of WOFFLE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then it'll be accurate to describe the content of all major web sites as a bunch of WOFFLE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956420</id>
	<title>And how hard will it be to extract the entire font</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257163140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless I'm not understanding this, it seems like at some point in the communication -- the font information is still being communicated to the client.  Even if it's encrypted, it would still seem to me that the entire font could be extracted and rebuilt at some level just by viewing it.</p><p>How long until we see an application (or a web-based application) that does exactly this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless I 'm not understanding this , it seems like at some point in the communication -- the font information is still being communicated to the client .
Even if it 's encrypted , it would still seem to me that the entire font could be extracted and rebuilt at some level just by viewing it.How long until we see an application ( or a web-based application ) that does exactly this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless I'm not understanding this, it seems like at some point in the communication -- the font information is still being communicated to the client.
Even if it's encrypted, it would still seem to me that the entire font could be extracted and rebuilt at some level just by viewing it.How long until we see an application (or a web-based application) that does exactly this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956616</id>
	<title>They should have named it</title>
	<author>sconeu</author>
	<datestamp>1257164280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Web Open Representation for Fonts....</p><p>Just so we could have WORF as an acronym.</p><p>"Today is a good day to be rendered!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Web Open Representation for Fonts....Just so we could have WORF as an acronym .
" Today is a good day to be rendered !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web Open Representation for Fonts....Just so we could have WORF as an acronym.
"Today is a good day to be rendered!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956232</id>
	<title>Re:format does not matter, it's about download lim</title>
	<author>kill-1</author>
	<datestamp>1257162060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This might seem minor to you, but due to this restriction some of the large font foundries like fontfont and linotype will license their professional fonts for web use for the first time</p></div><p>I believe it when I see it. It is trivial to convert a WOFF font back to Truetype or CFF. And most WOFF fonts probably won't be subsetted, so the foundries are essentially allowing their licensees to put their complete fonts on the web downloadable for everyone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This might seem minor to you , but due to this restriction some of the large font foundries like fontfont and linotype will license their professional fonts for web use for the first timeI believe it when I see it .
It is trivial to convert a WOFF font back to Truetype or CFF .
And most WOFF fonts probably wo n't be subsetted , so the foundries are essentially allowing their licensees to put their complete fonts on the web downloadable for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might seem minor to you, but due to this restriction some of the large font foundries like fontfont and linotype will license their professional fonts for web use for the first timeI believe it when I see it.
It is trivial to convert a WOFF font back to Truetype or CFF.
And most WOFF fonts probably won't be subsetted, so the foundries are essentially allowing their licensees to put their complete fonts on the web downloadable for everyone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955942</id>
	<title>format does not matter, it's about download limits</title>
	<author>chriss</author>
	<datestamp>1257160680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The interesting part of WOFF is not that it is a new font format. Actually it is mostly a wrapper around the OpenType format from Microsoft and Adobe with some goodies. The important part is that WOFF restricts where the font can be linked to. While e.g. a truetype font can be referenced from anywhere with CSS, a WOFF font has to be stored on the same site as the web page/css.</p><p>This might seem minor to you, but due to this restriction some of the large font foundries like fontfont and linotype <a href="http://www.edenspiekermann.com/woff/" title="edenspiekermann.com">will license their professional fonts for web use for the first time</a> [edenspiekermann.com] (, probably because it would make prosecution of non licensed font use doable). This is actually big and will probably be an important step for typography on the web. I hope for the end of sFir, headlines as graphics and other bad ideas.</p><p>I think the format itself is not so much a technical and more a political achievement. It actually helps that it was derived from drafts from two typographers, not from some of the browser producers. The fact that it is a new format (so no copy problem baggage) and that it will provide some very light copy protection without having to implement DRM on the browser site probably helped getting the foundries on board. And you really need the foundries if you want typography to work, the current state of free fonts is just not good enough for most professional requirements.</p><p>Gecko, webkit and Opera already support OpenType, so adding the new format will be easy. Microsoft's IE supports crippled OpenType as eOT. The primary reason for crippling it was providing some light copy protection to get the foundries on board (which failed), so maybe even Microsoft will play along this time.</p><p>If this happens, we will not only see one font technology that is supported by all browsers for the first time, but will also be able to use thousands of professional fonts along with already usable free fonts to help browsers catch up with the increased readability and expressiveness print has had for hundreds of years due to the long time experience in typography.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The interesting part of WOFF is not that it is a new font format .
Actually it is mostly a wrapper around the OpenType format from Microsoft and Adobe with some goodies .
The important part is that WOFF restricts where the font can be linked to .
While e.g .
a truetype font can be referenced from anywhere with CSS , a WOFF font has to be stored on the same site as the web page/css.This might seem minor to you , but due to this restriction some of the large font foundries like fontfont and linotype will license their professional fonts for web use for the first time [ edenspiekermann.com ] ( , probably because it would make prosecution of non licensed font use doable ) .
This is actually big and will probably be an important step for typography on the web .
I hope for the end of sFir , headlines as graphics and other bad ideas.I think the format itself is not so much a technical and more a political achievement .
It actually helps that it was derived from drafts from two typographers , not from some of the browser producers .
The fact that it is a new format ( so no copy problem baggage ) and that it will provide some very light copy protection without having to implement DRM on the browser site probably helped getting the foundries on board .
And you really need the foundries if you want typography to work , the current state of free fonts is just not good enough for most professional requirements.Gecko , webkit and Opera already support OpenType , so adding the new format will be easy .
Microsoft 's IE supports crippled OpenType as eOT .
The primary reason for crippling it was providing some light copy protection to get the foundries on board ( which failed ) , so maybe even Microsoft will play along this time.If this happens , we will not only see one font technology that is supported by all browsers for the first time , but will also be able to use thousands of professional fonts along with already usable free fonts to help browsers catch up with the increased readability and expressiveness print has had for hundreds of years due to the long time experience in typography .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The interesting part of WOFF is not that it is a new font format.
Actually it is mostly a wrapper around the OpenType format from Microsoft and Adobe with some goodies.
The important part is that WOFF restricts where the font can be linked to.
While e.g.
a truetype font can be referenced from anywhere with CSS, a WOFF font has to be stored on the same site as the web page/css.This might seem minor to you, but due to this restriction some of the large font foundries like fontfont and linotype will license their professional fonts for web use for the first time [edenspiekermann.com] (, probably because it would make prosecution of non licensed font use doable).
This is actually big and will probably be an important step for typography on the web.
I hope for the end of sFir, headlines as graphics and other bad ideas.I think the format itself is not so much a technical and more a political achievement.
It actually helps that it was derived from drafts from two typographers, not from some of the browser producers.
The fact that it is a new format (so no copy problem baggage) and that it will provide some very light copy protection without having to implement DRM on the browser site probably helped getting the foundries on board.
And you really need the foundries if you want typography to work, the current state of free fonts is just not good enough for most professional requirements.Gecko, webkit and Opera already support OpenType, so adding the new format will be easy.
Microsoft's IE supports crippled OpenType as eOT.
The primary reason for crippling it was providing some light copy protection to get the foundries on board (which failed), so maybe even Microsoft will play along this time.If this happens, we will not only see one font technology that is supported by all browsers for the first time, but will also be able to use thousands of professional fonts along with already usable free fonts to help browsers catch up with the increased readability and expressiveness print has had for hundreds of years due to the long time experience in typography.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29958820</id>
	<title>Re:Brillian idea</title>
	<author>ejtttje</author>
	<datestamp>1257175380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problems start, however, at the very point where the website stops working correctly because the user had the "arrogance" of replacing the font with his own, or the "nerve" to press Ctrl++ to try and make the text bigger.</p></div><p>The current alternatives to font downloads degrade much worse!  Currently, images are often used for things such as button labels or headings or logos or such fancy UI elements.  <em>There is no way</em> to replace these elements with a more readable font for visually-impared users, alt tags are often forgotten, and it's invisible to spidering and context parsing.  Scaling with Ctrl-+, if the browser even scales images, becomes blurry and unreadable.<br>
<br>
I have trouble imaging how font downloads will do anything but improve the current situation.  I'm sure there's some demented edge cases, but by and large this is a Good Thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problems start , however , at the very point where the website stops working correctly because the user had the " arrogance " of replacing the font with his own , or the " nerve " to press Ctrl + + to try and make the text bigger.The current alternatives to font downloads degrade much worse !
Currently , images are often used for things such as button labels or headings or logos or such fancy UI elements .
There is no way to replace these elements with a more readable font for visually-impared users , alt tags are often forgotten , and it 's invisible to spidering and context parsing .
Scaling with Ctrl- + , if the browser even scales images , becomes blurry and unreadable .
I have trouble imaging how font downloads will do anything but improve the current situation .
I 'm sure there 's some demented edge cases , but by and large this is a Good Thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problems start, however, at the very point where the website stops working correctly because the user had the "arrogance" of replacing the font with his own, or the "nerve" to press Ctrl++ to try and make the text bigger.The current alternatives to font downloads degrade much worse!
Currently, images are often used for things such as button labels or headings or logos or such fancy UI elements.
There is no way to replace these elements with a more readable font for visually-impared users, alt tags are often forgotten, and it's invisible to spidering and context parsing.
Scaling with Ctrl-+, if the browser even scales images, becomes blurry and unreadable.
I have trouble imaging how font downloads will do anything but improve the current situation.
I'm sure there's some demented edge cases, but by and large this is a Good Thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957470</id>
	<title>NoScript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257168840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is one already. NoScript has a setting to ignore @font-face in non-whitelisted addresses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is one already .
NoScript has a setting to ignore @ font-face in non-whitelisted addresses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is one already.
NoScript has a setting to ignore @font-face in non-whitelisted addresses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955722</id>
	<title>Re:Easier fonts means a lot!</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1257159840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><tt>I hope this gets implemented to Slashdot too, this kind of posting just isn't enough!</tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope this gets implemented to Slashdot too , this kind of posting just is n't enough !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope this gets implemented to Slashdot too, this kind of posting just isn't enough!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957460</id>
	<title>Help me understand this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257168780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A font in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.webfont format couldn't be trivially installed on a computer for use, so it offered some protection from casual copying."</p><p>Does this mean they made it difficult to use instead of adding DRM?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A font in the .webfont format could n't be trivially installed on a computer for use , so it offered some protection from casual copying .
" Does this mean they made it difficult to use instead of adding DRM ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A font in the .webfont format couldn't be trivially installed on a computer for use, so it offered some protection from casual copying.
"Does this mean they made it difficult to use instead of adding DRM?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956540</id>
	<title>mold down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257163860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">market. Therefore other mem3ers in many of us are</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>market .
Therefore other mem3ers in many of us are [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>market.
Therefore other mem3ers in many of us are [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29976048</id>
	<title>OpenType already has use restrictions</title>
	<author>Doctor O</author>
	<datestamp>1256990160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The important part is that WOFF restricts where the font can be linked to.</p></div><p>Actually this feature was already present in OpenType when I started using OTF in 2001 for a web-to-print application. I don't know if it was the typical MS embrace-and-extend, but when creating OTF from TTF with <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/typography/WEFT.mspx" title="microsoft.com">WEFT</a> [microsoft.com] you had to specify the URI(s) you wanted to use the fonts from. If you embedded the fonts on any other URI, they would simply display as unstyled text. Some more reading on this is <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/typography/web/embedding/weft3/tutorial.aspx#step1" title="microsoft.com">here</a> [microsoft.com].</p><p>So whatever is the reason for the new format, copy protection isn't it. That was already present in WEFT 2, which came out early 2000, and probably in WEFT 1, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The important part is that WOFF restricts where the font can be linked to.Actually this feature was already present in OpenType when I started using OTF in 2001 for a web-to-print application .
I do n't know if it was the typical MS embrace-and-extend , but when creating OTF from TTF with WEFT [ microsoft.com ] you had to specify the URI ( s ) you wanted to use the fonts from .
If you embedded the fonts on any other URI , they would simply display as unstyled text .
Some more reading on this is here [ microsoft.com ] .So whatever is the reason for the new format , copy protection is n't it .
That was already present in WEFT 2 , which came out early 2000 , and probably in WEFT 1 , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The important part is that WOFF restricts where the font can be linked to.Actually this feature was already present in OpenType when I started using OTF in 2001 for a web-to-print application.
I don't know if it was the typical MS embrace-and-extend, but when creating OTF from TTF with WEFT [microsoft.com] you had to specify the URI(s) you wanted to use the fonts from.
If you embedded the fonts on any other URI, they would simply display as unstyled text.
Some more reading on this is here [microsoft.com].So whatever is the reason for the new format, copy protection isn't it.
That was already present in WEFT 2, which came out early 2000, and probably in WEFT 1, too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29958928</id>
	<title>Re:Brillian idea</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1257175800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The problems start, however, at the very point where the website stops working correctly because the user had the "arrogance" of replacing the font with his own, or the "nerve" to press Ctrl++ to try and make the text bigger.</i></p><p>Assuming, of course, that ^C++ (or in my case, repeating ^C-- for every other website) has any effect whatsoever.</p><p>I've never seen, for example, a popular blog that didn't have fonts so large they resembled something in a Children's book, or the cover of a magazine as opposed to the inside where the articles are supposed to be.   Hell, even news.google.com decided to redo their page some time back with larger fonts.</p><p>You have a problem with fonts?  I think there's a lot of us who do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problems start , however , at the very point where the website stops working correctly because the user had the " arrogance " of replacing the font with his own , or the " nerve " to press Ctrl + + to try and make the text bigger.Assuming , of course , that ^ C + + ( or in my case , repeating ^ C-- for every other website ) has any effect whatsoever.I 've never seen , for example , a popular blog that did n't have fonts so large they resembled something in a Children 's book , or the cover of a magazine as opposed to the inside where the articles are supposed to be .
Hell , even news.google.com decided to redo their page some time back with larger fonts.You have a problem with fonts ?
I think there 's a lot of us who do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problems start, however, at the very point where the website stops working correctly because the user had the "arrogance" of replacing the font with his own, or the "nerve" to press Ctrl++ to try and make the text bigger.Assuming, of course, that ^C++ (or in my case, repeating ^C-- for every other website) has any effect whatsoever.I've never seen, for example, a popular blog that didn't have fonts so large they resembled something in a Children's book, or the cover of a magazine as opposed to the inside where the articles are supposed to be.
Hell, even news.google.com decided to redo their page some time back with larger fonts.You have a problem with fonts?
I think there's a lot of us who do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966336</id>
	<title>Re:More Fonts for the Internet?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257276660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you are saying, that because there are retards out there, we should forbid everything and all things that they could ever use?</p><p>Yeah, right. You don't know it, but that just made you look really stupid...</p><p>Maybe we should fix the retards instead? Or just live with reality and don't freakin' care! Thereby making your life so much better!</p><p>What do you think?</p><p>And yes I can imagine if it had been around back then: People would be over that, just as they are over Flash intros. And pages would look a whole lot more like good loocking magazine pages by now!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you are saying , that because there are retards out there , we should forbid everything and all things that they could ever use ? Yeah , right .
You do n't know it , but that just made you look really stupid...Maybe we should fix the retards instead ?
Or just live with reality and do n't freakin ' care !
Thereby making your life so much better ! What do you think ? And yes I can imagine if it had been around back then : People would be over that , just as they are over Flash intros .
And pages would look a whole lot more like good loocking magazine pages by now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you are saying, that because there are retards out there, we should forbid everything and all things that they could ever use?Yeah, right.
You don't know it, but that just made you look really stupid...Maybe we should fix the retards instead?
Or just live with reality and don't freakin' care!
Thereby making your life so much better!What do you think?And yes I can imagine if it had been around back then: People would be over that, just as they are over Flash intros.
And pages would look a whole lot more like good loocking magazine pages by now!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957938</id>
	<title>Next up...Typesettings?</title>
	<author>sam0737</author>
	<datestamp>1257170820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When will we be able to tune the Typesettings in CSS? Kerning, Tracking, etc?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When will we be able to tune the Typesettings in CSS ?
Kerning , Tracking , etc ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When will we be able to tune the Typesettings in CSS?
Kerning, Tracking, etc?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29961428</id>
	<title>Re:format does not matter, it's about download lim</title>
	<author>bloobloo</author>
	<datestamp>1257245460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Linotype get on board with this I would be so happy. There are already free fonts out there, but I would be willing to pay for Helvetica Neue if I could use it online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Linotype get on board with this I would be so happy .
There are already free fonts out there , but I would be willing to pay for Helvetica Neue if I could use it online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Linotype get on board with this I would be so happy.
There are already free fonts out there, but I would be willing to pay for Helvetica Neue if I could use it online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29964584</id>
	<title>Implications for offline work and portability?</title>
	<author>Qubit</author>
	<datestamp>1257268920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Firefox will have a default same-origin restriction, so it will only load WOFF fonts from the same domain as the webpage being loaded&mdash;a restriction that puts type vendors at ease. The ability to load fonts from other domains can be enabled by a server using Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS).</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>A font in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.webfont format couldn't be trivially installed on a computer for use, so it offered some protection from casual copying.</p></div><p>Okay, so this mechanism allows for embedded fonts that are somewhat locked down. But what does this mean for some simple use cases?</p><p>For example, let's say that I navigate to a website on my laptop and save an html page to disk. Does that saved page include all embedded fonts?</p><p>What if I copy that page to someone else's computer -- does the page render properly on their system as well?  Does it have to "phone home," so to speak, in order to render the page as correctly as possible?  (I'm sensing another avenue for websites to track the distribution of documents)</p><p>Will there be pressure from type vendors to keep these fonts locked down? Is user freedom going to negatively be affected?</p><p>As others have stated in this thread, html documents should degrade gracefully, however this is very rarely put into practice. Hopefully these new embedded fonts will be used for good (or for awesome, as Strong Bad would say), and will not turn into one more easily-abused, headache-inducing web feature.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox will have a default same-origin restriction , so it will only load WOFF fonts from the same domain as the webpage being loaded    a restriction that puts type vendors at ease .
The ability to load fonts from other domains can be enabled by a server using Cross-Origin Resource Sharing ( CORS ) .A font in the .webfont format could n't be trivially installed on a computer for use , so it offered some protection from casual copying.Okay , so this mechanism allows for embedded fonts that are somewhat locked down .
But what does this mean for some simple use cases ? For example , let 's say that I navigate to a website on my laptop and save an html page to disk .
Does that saved page include all embedded fonts ? What if I copy that page to someone else 's computer -- does the page render properly on their system as well ?
Does it have to " phone home , " so to speak , in order to render the page as correctly as possible ?
( I 'm sensing another avenue for websites to track the distribution of documents ) Will there be pressure from type vendors to keep these fonts locked down ?
Is user freedom going to negatively be affected ? As others have stated in this thread , html documents should degrade gracefully , however this is very rarely put into practice .
Hopefully these new embedded fonts will be used for good ( or for awesome , as Strong Bad would say ) , and will not turn into one more easily-abused , headache-inducing web feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox will have a default same-origin restriction, so it will only load WOFF fonts from the same domain as the webpage being loaded—a restriction that puts type vendors at ease.
The ability to load fonts from other domains can be enabled by a server using Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS).A font in the .webfont format couldn't be trivially installed on a computer for use, so it offered some protection from casual copying.Okay, so this mechanism allows for embedded fonts that are somewhat locked down.
But what does this mean for some simple use cases?For example, let's say that I navigate to a website on my laptop and save an html page to disk.
Does that saved page include all embedded fonts?What if I copy that page to someone else's computer -- does the page render properly on their system as well?
Does it have to "phone home," so to speak, in order to render the page as correctly as possible?
(I'm sensing another avenue for websites to track the distribution of documents)Will there be pressure from type vendors to keep these fonts locked down?
Is user freedom going to negatively be affected?As others have stated in this thread, html documents should degrade gracefully, however this is very rarely put into practice.
Hopefully these new embedded fonts will be used for good (or for awesome, as Strong Bad would say), and will not turn into one more easily-abused, headache-inducing web feature.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955712</id>
	<title>How long...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257159840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...before Microsoft embraces and extends this format?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...before Microsoft embraces and extends this format ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...before Microsoft embraces and extends this format?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956502</id>
	<title>Re:How long...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257163680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then find the checkbox next to "Disable web fonts" and tick it. It's probably near "Disable images" and "Disable styles".</p><p>The rest of us will enjoy the improvement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then find the checkbox next to " Disable web fonts " and tick it .
It 's probably near " Disable images " and " Disable styles " .The rest of us will enjoy the improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then find the checkbox next to "Disable web fonts" and tick it.
It's probably near "Disable images" and "Disable styles".The rest of us will enjoy the improvement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955848</id>
	<title>More Fonts for the Internet?</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1257160320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh. Shit.</p><p>You know what else the Internet needs more of? Blink tags. In the right hands, fonts are marvelous tools for graphic design and aesthetics. In the hands of the average user or amateur web designer...shit. It's a good thing this is happening well into the Web 2.0 era. Can you imagine if this had been around in the days of Geocities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh .
Shit.You know what else the Internet needs more of ?
Blink tags .
In the right hands , fonts are marvelous tools for graphic design and aesthetics .
In the hands of the average user or amateur web designer...shit .
It 's a good thing this is happening well into the Web 2.0 era .
Can you imagine if this had been around in the days of Geocities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh.
Shit.You know what else the Internet needs more of?
Blink tags.
In the right hands, fonts are marvelous tools for graphic design and aesthetics.
In the hands of the average user or amateur web designer...shit.
It's a good thing this is happening well into the Web 2.0 era.
Can you imagine if this had been around in the days of Geocities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956474</id>
	<title>This will be awesome in 10 years</title>
	<author>schnablebg</author>
	<datestamp>1257163440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is going to be so great in 10 years when IE supports it fully and enough users are running that version of IE to make it worth the implementation time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is going to be so great in 10 years when IE supports it fully and enough users are running that version of IE to make it worth the implementation time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is going to be so great in 10 years when IE supports it fully and enough users are running that version of IE to make it worth the implementation time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966416</id>
	<title>Re:As long as:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257277140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. Just like JavaScript, Images, any CSS, graphical rendering, bookmarks, DNS servers, and all that other useless modern shit! I mean, what's the point?<br><br>Oh, and mice. Don't EVER talk to me about mice!<br><br>&lt;/sacrasm&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Just like JavaScript , Images , any CSS , graphical rendering , bookmarks , DNS servers , and all that other useless modern shit !
I mean , what 's the point ? Oh , and mice .
Do n't EVER talk to me about mice !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Just like JavaScript, Images, any CSS, graphical rendering, bookmarks, DNS servers, and all that other useless modern shit!
I mean, what's the point?Oh, and mice.
Don't EVER talk to me about mice!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956638</id>
	<title>Re:And how hard will it be to extract the entire f</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257164400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, not gonna happen for exactly this reason. At least IE will not support this. And Mozilla will be on rather explosive legal territory if they decide to go ahead and seriously implement this. And I'm pretty sure that this is also the reason users can't include fonts in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc/.docx/.odt files. And before someone suggests font subsets, it's doubtful that would work well on the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , not gon na happen for exactly this reason .
At least IE will not support this .
And Mozilla will be on rather explosive legal territory if they decide to go ahead and seriously implement this .
And I 'm pretty sure that this is also the reason users ca n't include fonts in .doc/.docx/.odt files .
And before someone suggests font subsets , it 's doubtful that would work well on the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, not gonna happen for exactly this reason.
At least IE will not support this.
And Mozilla will be on rather explosive legal territory if they decide to go ahead and seriously implement this.
And I'm pretty sure that this is also the reason users can't include fonts in .doc/.docx/.odt files.
And before someone suggests font subsets, it's doubtful that would work well on the web.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957008</id>
	<title>Re:Light Edition called WOFFLE</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1257166680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think they should have gone with Open Web Type Format.</p></div><p>Dude, please. If you're going to do it, do it right:</p><p> <strong>O</strong>pen, <strong>M</strong>odular, <strong>G</strong>eneric <strong>W</strong>eb <strong>T</strong>ype <strong>F</strong>ormat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they should have gone with Open Web Type Format.Dude , please .
If you 're going to do it , do it right : Open , Modular , Generic Web Type Format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they should have gone with Open Web Type Format.Dude, please.
If you're going to do it, do it right: Open, Modular, Generic Web Type Format.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29959356</id>
	<title>Re:And how hard will it be to extract the entire f</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1257179160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; How long until we see an application (or a web-based application) that does<br>&gt; exactly this?</p><p>I don't think that any significant number of users would bother with such a thing (or even be aware that the possibility exists).  Fonts aren't music.</p><p>I don't like the idea of more loony fonts, but it's a worthwhile tradeoff if it reduces the number of all-Flash sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; How long until we see an application ( or a web-based application ) that does &gt; exactly this ? I do n't think that any significant number of users would bother with such a thing ( or even be aware that the possibility exists ) .
Fonts are n't music.I do n't like the idea of more loony fonts , but it 's a worthwhile tradeoff if it reduces the number of all-Flash sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; How long until we see an application (or a web-based application) that does&gt; exactly this?I don't think that any significant number of users would bother with such a thing (or even be aware that the possibility exists).
Fonts aren't music.I don't like the idea of more loony fonts, but it's a worthwhile tradeoff if it reduces the number of all-Flash sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29958864</id>
	<title>Re:More Fonts for the Internet?</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1257175560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can you imagine if this had been around in the days of Geocities.</p></div><p>Rats. If only this technology would have been released <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/26/1359223" title="slashdot.org">just a few weeks earlier...</a> [slashdot.org] Now we'll never know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you imagine if this had been around in the days of Geocities.Rats .
If only this technology would have been released just a few weeks earlier... [ slashdot.org ] Now we 'll never know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you imagine if this had been around in the days of Geocities.Rats.
If only this technology would have been released just a few weeks earlier... [slashdot.org] Now we'll never know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956184</id>
	<title>What about the foundries?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257161880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this even news?  It's all well and good for a browser vendor to endorse a font format, but it's absolutely useless if no foundries will release fonts in this format.  As I found out the hard way, designing a good font is difficult, and best left to experts.  Being able to make our own "open" fonts is a nice idea in theory, but in practice, it's more useful to be able to buy or commission fonts from professional designers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this even news ?
It 's all well and good for a browser vendor to endorse a font format , but it 's absolutely useless if no foundries will release fonts in this format .
As I found out the hard way , designing a good font is difficult , and best left to experts .
Being able to make our own " open " fonts is a nice idea in theory , but in practice , it 's more useful to be able to buy or commission fonts from professional designers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this even news?
It's all well and good for a browser vendor to endorse a font format, but it's absolutely useless if no foundries will release fonts in this format.
As I found out the hard way, designing a good font is difficult, and best left to experts.
Being able to make our own "open" fonts is a nice idea in theory, but in practice, it's more useful to be able to buy or commission fonts from professional designers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29961424</id>
	<title>Must be some typography geeks here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257245340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If so, can you remind me which font is often known as "Dogfucker Sans" in typography circles due to the designer's criminal convictions for fucking both the family dog and his daughters?</p><p>I though it was Garamond or maybe Gill, but I see no mention in the Wikipedia articles. Please help, as there is a limit to how many search terms containing the words "dog" and "fucker" that I'm prepared to type into Google in order to satisfy my curiosity. Especially at work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If so , can you remind me which font is often known as " Dogfucker Sans " in typography circles due to the designer 's criminal convictions for fucking both the family dog and his daughters ? I though it was Garamond or maybe Gill , but I see no mention in the Wikipedia articles .
Please help , as there is a limit to how many search terms containing the words " dog " and " fucker " that I 'm prepared to type into Google in order to satisfy my curiosity .
Especially at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If so, can you remind me which font is often known as "Dogfucker Sans" in typography circles due to the designer's criminal convictions for fucking both the family dog and his daughters?I though it was Garamond or maybe Gill, but I see no mention in the Wikipedia articles.
Please help, as there is a limit to how many search terms containing the words "dog" and "fucker" that I'm prepared to type into Google in order to satisfy my curiosity.
Especially at work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955744</id>
	<title>Re:Easier fonts means a lot!</title>
	<author>mb1</author>
	<datestamp>1257159960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I'm imagining a world that can do away with buggy, hard to configure inline Flash replacements for realtime custom font display. It's a good world<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I 'm imagining a world that can do away with buggy , hard to configure inline Flash replacements for realtime custom font display .
It 's a good world : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I'm imagining a world that can do away with buggy, hard to configure inline Flash replacements for realtime custom font display.
It's a good world :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956526</id>
	<title>Because SVG fonts aren't already enough ...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257163800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously mozilla, I'm rapidly losing faith in you.</p><p>We already have SVG fonts.  Why exactly do we need ANOTHER one?</p><p>Fix the abomination your browser has turned into and focus on the reason you exist.  Its got to the point where IE is going to be less bloated than Firefox.</p><p>You've got PLENTY of bugs to fix already, and you can't even agree with anyone on existing compatibility issues.</p><p>We don't want more features, we want Firefox to stop running like Navigator did in the late 90s.</p><p>Are you trying to become another Novell?  Once a respectable company with a good product, but now a has been with nothing of real value to offer?  Stop fragmenting the web, we don't need another freaking font format.</p><p>FOCUS.</p><p>again</p><p>FOCUS</p><p>Before you become obsolete, of course, with Chrome, it may well be too late.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously mozilla , I 'm rapidly losing faith in you.We already have SVG fonts .
Why exactly do we need ANOTHER one ? Fix the abomination your browser has turned into and focus on the reason you exist .
Its got to the point where IE is going to be less bloated than Firefox.You 've got PLENTY of bugs to fix already , and you ca n't even agree with anyone on existing compatibility issues.We do n't want more features , we want Firefox to stop running like Navigator did in the late 90s.Are you trying to become another Novell ?
Once a respectable company with a good product , but now a has been with nothing of real value to offer ?
Stop fragmenting the web , we do n't need another freaking font format.FOCUS.againFOCUSBefore you become obsolete , of course , with Chrome , it may well be too late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously mozilla, I'm rapidly losing faith in you.We already have SVG fonts.
Why exactly do we need ANOTHER one?Fix the abomination your browser has turned into and focus on the reason you exist.
Its got to the point where IE is going to be less bloated than Firefox.You've got PLENTY of bugs to fix already, and you can't even agree with anyone on existing compatibility issues.We don't want more features, we want Firefox to stop running like Navigator did in the late 90s.Are you trying to become another Novell?
Once a respectable company with a good product, but now a has been with nothing of real value to offer?
Stop fragmenting the web, we don't need another freaking font format.FOCUS.againFOCUSBefore you become obsolete, of course, with Chrome, it may well be too late.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955808</id>
	<title>Re:Great, but...</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1257160140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since they do it anyways, it sure wins having the text in an image, or worse, flash applet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since they do it anyways , it sure wins having the text in an image , or worse , flash applet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since they do it anyways, it sure wins having the text in an image, or worse, flash applet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955730</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29959876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29958362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29960828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29976048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29963718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29958928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29958864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29961894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29963126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29961424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29961280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29964790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29961138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29968094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29958820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29961428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29961384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29959532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29959356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29965950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29962692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_2025242_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29962808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2025242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957160
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966698
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29968094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29962692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29958362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956008
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956502
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29963718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29961384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2025242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29959356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2025242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2025242.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2025242.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29958864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2025242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2025242.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29962808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29959532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29961428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29976048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2025242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2025242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2025242.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2025242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29965950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29961280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29961138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29961894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2025242.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29964790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2025242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2025242.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956946
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29958928
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29958820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29959876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29957092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29960828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2025242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29958304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2025242.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29961424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29963126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2025242.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29956374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_2025242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29966576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_2025242.29955808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
