<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_16_1335256</id>
	<title>Typography On the Web Gets Different</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1247751840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://bstenderampsflandmarkcom/" rel="nofollow">bstender</a> writes <i>"Most major browsers &mdash; including the latest versions of Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and Opera &mdash; recognize a CSS rule known as @font-face. What that means, in brief, is that Web developers can now <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2222745/">easily embed downloadable fonts in their pages</a>. To see an example, load up Firefox 3.5 or Safari 4 and <a href="http://craigmod.com/journal/font-face/">learn more</a>. You'll see three new typefaces &mdash; Liza, Auto, and Dolly &mdash; used in the body text and headlines."</i>
No doubt the licensing issues are just as complex as the font nerd potential.</htmltext>
<tokenext>bstender writes " Most major browsers    including the latest versions of Internet Explorer , Firefox , Safari , Chrome , and Opera    recognize a CSS rule known as @ font-face .
What that means , in brief , is that Web developers can now easily embed downloadable fonts in their pages .
To see an example , load up Firefox 3.5 or Safari 4 and learn more .
You 'll see three new typefaces    Liza , Auto , and Dolly    used in the body text and headlines .
" No doubt the licensing issues are just as complex as the font nerd potential .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bstender writes "Most major browsers — including the latest versions of Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and Opera — recognize a CSS rule known as @font-face.
What that means, in brief, is that Web developers can now easily embed downloadable fonts in their pages.
To see an example, load up Firefox 3.5 or Safari 4 and learn more.
You'll see three new typefaces — Liza, Auto, and Dolly — used in the body text and headlines.
"
No doubt the licensing issues are just as complex as the font nerd potential.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716021</id>
	<title>Hold on a sec...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247756040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, I don't know much about CSS. I'm more the "local" person in our security team (as compared to the "remote" gurus sitting some good distance from me. Yes, go ahead, make your jokes). But<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... something that downloads something from the internet and pushes it through a browser without asking anyone human first looks a wee bit problematic for me.</p><p>Could anyone gimme a hint before I get off my rear and haul the same over those maybe even 30 feet to our remote gurus, so I won't look stupid when I suggest that problem to them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , I do n't know much about CSS .
I 'm more the " local " person in our security team ( as compared to the " remote " gurus sitting some good distance from me .
Yes , go ahead , make your jokes ) .
But ... something that downloads something from the internet and pushes it through a browser without asking anyone human first looks a wee bit problematic for me.Could anyone gim me a hint before I get off my rear and haul the same over those maybe even 30 feet to our remote gurus , so I wo n't look stupid when I suggest that problem to them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, I don't know much about CSS.
I'm more the "local" person in our security team (as compared to the "remote" gurus sitting some good distance from me.
Yes, go ahead, make your jokes).
But ... something that downloads something from the internet and pushes it through a browser without asking anyone human first looks a wee bit problematic for me.Could anyone gimme a hint before I get off my rear and haul the same over those maybe even 30 feet to our remote gurus, so I won't look stupid when I suggest that problem to them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718241</id>
	<title>Re:typekit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247764680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I understand it (I could be very wrong here), they're a security gate between the browser and the holder of the font copyright. The font holder allows TypeKit to host their font. Typekit allows you to specify that font via JavaScript and (presumably) checks to ensure that the client is passing a valid key of some sort to them before allowing that font to be displayed. Not an ideal solution (OK so now instead of converting type to images or flash we're requiring JavaScript?), but one that makes the copyright holders a bit more comfortable. I, for one, would rather just use free, open fonts via @font-face, but I know some professional designers out there are often required to use particular non-free fonts.</p><p>If you ask me, it's still Digital Rights Management. I'm not sure how the definition of that term got so skewed that it suddenly only applies to rootkits being installed or something. Seems to me that anything that manages digital files that are protected by copyright ought to be classified as DRM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I understand it ( I could be very wrong here ) , they 're a security gate between the browser and the holder of the font copyright .
The font holder allows TypeKit to host their font .
Typekit allows you to specify that font via JavaScript and ( presumably ) checks to ensure that the client is passing a valid key of some sort to them before allowing that font to be displayed .
Not an ideal solution ( OK so now instead of converting type to images or flash we 're requiring JavaScript ?
) , but one that makes the copyright holders a bit more comfortable .
I , for one , would rather just use free , open fonts via @ font-face , but I know some professional designers out there are often required to use particular non-free fonts.If you ask me , it 's still Digital Rights Management .
I 'm not sure how the definition of that term got so skewed that it suddenly only applies to rootkits being installed or something .
Seems to me that anything that manages digital files that are protected by copyright ought to be classified as DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I understand it (I could be very wrong here), they're a security gate between the browser and the holder of the font copyright.
The font holder allows TypeKit to host their font.
Typekit allows you to specify that font via JavaScript and (presumably) checks to ensure that the client is passing a valid key of some sort to them before allowing that font to be displayed.
Not an ideal solution (OK so now instead of converting type to images or flash we're requiring JavaScript?
), but one that makes the copyright holders a bit more comfortable.
I, for one, would rather just use free, open fonts via @font-face, but I know some professional designers out there are often required to use particular non-free fonts.If you ask me, it's still Digital Rights Management.
I'm not sure how the definition of that term got so skewed that it suddenly only applies to rootkits being installed or something.
Seems to me that anything that manages digital files that are protected by copyright ought to be classified as DRM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28725447</id>
	<title>Executable hints in TrueType</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1247756040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fonts do not contain executable code.</p> </div><p>TrueType fonts contain bytecode for a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueType#Hinting\_language" title="wikipedia.org">virtual machine that processes "hints"</a> [wikipedia.org] on how to make glyphs more readable at low resolutions. Some FreeType installations on Linux ignore these hints to work around an Apple patent, but the original TrueType implementations of Windows and classic Mac OS execute them in some sort of sandbox.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fonts do not contain executable code .
TrueType fonts contain bytecode for a virtual machine that processes " hints " [ wikipedia.org ] on how to make glyphs more readable at low resolutions .
Some FreeType installations on Linux ignore these hints to work around an Apple patent , but the original TrueType implementations of Windows and classic Mac OS execute them in some sort of sandbox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fonts do not contain executable code.
TrueType fonts contain bytecode for a virtual machine that processes "hints" [wikipedia.org] on how to make glyphs more readable at low resolutions.
Some FreeType installations on Linux ignore these hints to work around an Apple patent, but the original TrueType implementations of Windows and classic Mac OS execute them in some sort of sandbox.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28722683</id>
	<title>Re:font of knowledge</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1247738400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I understand the point about pixel-perfect control being a shackle and how web is supposed to have the flexibility of displaying on different hardware, different browsers, anything from a PDA to a 24" graphic designer screen.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's good news. As someone who's been producing content and writing software for the web since about 1995, allow me to say that it's high time this lesson started getting learned.</p><p>The mark of a good web developer -and a good browser- is not how they succeed, but how gracefully they fail. It is impossible to predict with any certainty how a website is going to look. Screen metrics, gamma, contrast, software, personal preference, window size etc. etc. etc. all conspire against those refined, pixel-perfect layouts that used to be so popular (and still crop up from time to time).</p><p>In the past, people misinterpreted this as an argument for the Lowest Common Denominator, and claimed they were being shackled with reduced expectations. The concept of failing gracefully - designing a site that remains usable and clearly laid out even when viewed with a minimal browser - is slowly catching on, but given the number of trivial operations that require JavaScript, I'd say we've still got a long way to go.</p><p>I like the idea of @font, even though I know it means that my eyes will be abused and insulted in new and inventive ways. My only admonition to would-be designers: If your site relies on having a particular font in order to render, you're doing it wrong.</p><p>My admonition to browser makers: Do not, not ever, make displaying a page contingent on having a particular font stored locally; and whatever you do, make sure there's a proverbial Big Red Button that allows the user to block fonts with ease.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand the point about pixel-perfect control being a shackle and how web is supposed to have the flexibility of displaying on different hardware , different browsers , anything from a PDA to a 24 " graphic designer screen.That 's good news .
As someone who 's been producing content and writing software for the web since about 1995 , allow me to say that it 's high time this lesson started getting learned.The mark of a good web developer -and a good browser- is not how they succeed , but how gracefully they fail .
It is impossible to predict with any certainty how a website is going to look .
Screen metrics , gamma , contrast , software , personal preference , window size etc .
etc. etc .
all conspire against those refined , pixel-perfect layouts that used to be so popular ( and still crop up from time to time ) .In the past , people misinterpreted this as an argument for the Lowest Common Denominator , and claimed they were being shackled with reduced expectations .
The concept of failing gracefully - designing a site that remains usable and clearly laid out even when viewed with a minimal browser - is slowly catching on , but given the number of trivial operations that require JavaScript , I 'd say we 've still got a long way to go.I like the idea of @ font , even though I know it means that my eyes will be abused and insulted in new and inventive ways .
My only admonition to would-be designers : If your site relies on having a particular font in order to render , you 're doing it wrong.My admonition to browser makers : Do not , not ever , make displaying a page contingent on having a particular font stored locally ; and whatever you do , make sure there 's a proverbial Big Red Button that allows the user to block fonts with ease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand the point about pixel-perfect control being a shackle and how web is supposed to have the flexibility of displaying on different hardware, different browsers, anything from a PDA to a 24" graphic designer screen.That's good news.
As someone who's been producing content and writing software for the web since about 1995, allow me to say that it's high time this lesson started getting learned.The mark of a good web developer -and a good browser- is not how they succeed, but how gracefully they fail.
It is impossible to predict with any certainty how a website is going to look.
Screen metrics, gamma, contrast, software, personal preference, window size etc.
etc. etc.
all conspire against those refined, pixel-perfect layouts that used to be so popular (and still crop up from time to time).In the past, people misinterpreted this as an argument for the Lowest Common Denominator, and claimed they were being shackled with reduced expectations.
The concept of failing gracefully - designing a site that remains usable and clearly laid out even when viewed with a minimal browser - is slowly catching on, but given the number of trivial operations that require JavaScript, I'd say we've still got a long way to go.I like the idea of @font, even though I know it means that my eyes will be abused and insulted in new and inventive ways.
My only admonition to would-be designers: If your site relies on having a particular font in order to render, you're doing it wrong.My admonition to browser makers: Do not, not ever, make displaying a page contingent on having a particular font stored locally; and whatever you do, make sure there's a proverbial Big Red Button that allows the user to block fonts with ease.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717123</id>
	<title>Re:Fonts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247760420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Licensing? You're fucking kidding me. You tried to copyright a certain style of type, and you expect to get paid every time someone uses it.<br>Unrealistic business model, please allow me to introduce you to "the internet"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...yes, you are indeed fucked, please go commiserate with musicians, authors and film makers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... sucks to be you.</p><p>Bandwidth? I actually believe this will save a *lot* of bandwidth. How many headers are gigantic compressed bitmaps of nothing more than characters in a certain font? Take yer font<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... delete all the characters not in your header, save, embed. BAM<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 400k or 500k becomes a matter of a a few hundred bytes.</p><p>Security? uuh right. it might be exploitable<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just like every other fucking thing in a web browser. I suppose you have images turned off, because they might be exploitable too? Javascript as well?</p><p>Compatibility &amp; Gains<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I'll give you something there about degrading gracefully<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that's more of a job for designers. There are *always* going to be shitty webpages no matter what tech is available. If you don't believe me, just go hang out on myspace for a bit.</p><p>It is absolutely NOT a stupid idea, or a stupid execution.<br>This is revolutionary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Licensing ?
You 're fucking kidding me .
You tried to copyright a certain style of type , and you expect to get paid every time someone uses it.Unrealistic business model , please allow me to introduce you to " the internet " ...yes , you are indeed fucked , please go commiserate with musicians , authors and film makers ... sucks to be you.Bandwidth ?
I actually believe this will save a * lot * of bandwidth .
How many headers are gigantic compressed bitmaps of nothing more than characters in a certain font ?
Take yer font ... delete all the characters not in your header , save , embed .
BAM ... 400k or 500k becomes a matter of a a few hundred bytes.Security ?
uuh right .
it might be exploitable ... just like every other fucking thing in a web browser .
I suppose you have images turned off , because they might be exploitable too ?
Javascript as well ? Compatibility &amp; Gains ... I 'll give you something there about degrading gracefully ... that 's more of a job for designers .
There are * always * going to be shitty webpages no matter what tech is available .
If you do n't believe me , just go hang out on myspace for a bit.It is absolutely NOT a stupid idea , or a stupid execution.This is revolutionary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Licensing?
You're fucking kidding me.
You tried to copyright a certain style of type, and you expect to get paid every time someone uses it.Unrealistic business model, please allow me to introduce you to "the internet" ...yes, you are indeed fucked, please go commiserate with musicians, authors and film makers ... sucks to be you.Bandwidth?
I actually believe this will save a *lot* of bandwidth.
How many headers are gigantic compressed bitmaps of nothing more than characters in a certain font?
Take yer font ... delete all the characters not in your header, save, embed.
BAM ... 400k or 500k becomes a matter of a a few hundred bytes.Security?
uuh right.
it might be exploitable ... just like every other fucking thing in a web browser.
I suppose you have images turned off, because they might be exploitable too?
Javascript as well?Compatibility &amp; Gains ... I'll give you something there about degrading gracefully ... that's more of a job for designers.
There are *always* going to be shitty webpages no matter what tech is available.
If you don't believe me, just go hang out on myspace for a bit.It is absolutely NOT a stupid idea, or a stupid execution.This is revolutionary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716827</id>
	<title>Why didn't they use h264 than?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1247759400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me ask something as you got GNU mail.</p><p>Isn't truetype a patent hell? So, what is the point of using TTF and messing up entire video element by "h264 has patents" argument?</p><p>I mean, as far as I know, postscript format (.ps) is chosen by X11 because of its multi platform nature and also not being a patent hell. Isn't that the reason? So why wasn't a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ps.gz preferred?</p><p>I really wonder freetype people's view about as they still have to offer -hinting as a separate option. Funny thing is, OS X, coming from a company who has been one of the reasons of that comedy comes with freetype.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me ask something as you got GNU mail.Is n't truetype a patent hell ?
So , what is the point of using TTF and messing up entire video element by " h264 has patents " argument ? I mean , as far as I know , postscript format ( .ps ) is chosen by X11 because of its multi platform nature and also not being a patent hell .
Is n't that the reason ?
So why was n't a .ps.gz preferred ? I really wonder freetype people 's view about as they still have to offer -hinting as a separate option .
Funny thing is , OS X , coming from a company who has been one of the reasons of that comedy comes with freetype .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me ask something as you got GNU mail.Isn't truetype a patent hell?
So, what is the point of using TTF and messing up entire video element by "h264 has patents" argument?I mean, as far as I know, postscript format (.ps) is chosen by X11 because of its multi platform nature and also not being a patent hell.
Isn't that the reason?
So why wasn't a .ps.gz preferred?I really wonder freetype people's view about as they still have to offer -hinting as a separate option.
Funny thing is, OS X, coming from a company who has been one of the reasons of that comedy comes with freetype.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716495</id>
	<title>Web pages should let the user select how it looks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247758200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Web pages should let the user select how it looks.  That's why it was created.<br>If you want control over the exact layout of a page, use PDF.</p><p>As I get older and don't see as well, I love that I can change the size and flow of text on a web page.  Web sites that don't let me control that, don't get my eyes.</p><p>As a designer, your idea of "kewl" isn't necessarily my idea of "cool" and useful. Seems allowing the end user to control that would be good? Perhaps?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Web pages should let the user select how it looks .
That 's why it was created.If you want control over the exact layout of a page , use PDF.As I get older and do n't see as well , I love that I can change the size and flow of text on a web page .
Web sites that do n't let me control that , do n't get my eyes.As a designer , your idea of " kewl " is n't necessarily my idea of " cool " and useful .
Seems allowing the end user to control that would be good ?
Perhaps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web pages should let the user select how it looks.
That's why it was created.If you want control over the exact layout of a page, use PDF.As I get older and don't see as well, I love that I can change the size and flow of text on a web page.
Web sites that don't let me control that, don't get my eyes.As a designer, your idea of "kewl" isn't necessarily my idea of "cool" and useful.
Seems allowing the end user to control that would be good?
Perhaps?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716245</id>
	<title>No problem</title>
	<author>JanneM</author>
	<datestamp>1247757000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no problem with this as long as I can continue to override the font selection and minimum size to something I want.</p><p>That, by the way, is great, and more people should try it. Every web page is consistent because every page has the same, easy-to-read type, with a minimum size that puts no strain on my eyes. And very, very few sites break if you do this now that most use CSS - I haven't actually encountered a sites that breaks in a long time. Add adblock and flashblock, and you have a very clean, consistent surfing experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no problem with this as long as I can continue to override the font selection and minimum size to something I want.That , by the way , is great , and more people should try it .
Every web page is consistent because every page has the same , easy-to-read type , with a minimum size that puts no strain on my eyes .
And very , very few sites break if you do this now that most use CSS - I have n't actually encountered a sites that breaks in a long time .
Add adblock and flashblock , and you have a very clean , consistent surfing experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no problem with this as long as I can continue to override the font selection and minimum size to something I want.That, by the way, is great, and more people should try it.
Every web page is consistent because every page has the same, easy-to-read type, with a minimum size that puts no strain on my eyes.
And very, very few sites break if you do this now that most use CSS - I haven't actually encountered a sites that breaks in a long time.
Add adblock and flashblock, and you have a very clean, consistent surfing experience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716255</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on a sec...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247757060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>img tag?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>img tag ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>img tag?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28751105</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but we need semantic fonts</title>
	<author>nidarus</author>
	<datestamp>1248006060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The web page in the example really has no place specifying the exact font which should be used, as people with visual impairments, people with low-res portable devices, or people whose native language isn't based on a latin script, might have extreme difficulty reading it. However, if you specify that the title is to be in a cursive font, then browsers could simply ship with nice cursive font settings by default</p></div><p>What's the point? All of those fine-grained definitions (that, IMHO, don't include "fantasy" or "futuristic" - those probably fall under "decorative", no?) matter to graphic designers, but mean little to the general public. And a graphic designer doesn't choose a font just because it's "transitional serif font", or even because it's a font with a certain x-height or a certain typographic color - he chooses it because it looks good in a certain situation, something that often comes down to specific letter shapes.</p><p>In my opinion, serif, sans-serif (and maybe you could add slab-serif) are good enough, because a layman can easily tell those apart. Defining fonts as "humanist serif" or "modern serif" doesn't really matter to the users (who can't tell the difference), and is equally useless to the designers (who just want Garamond or Bodoni).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The web page in the example really has no place specifying the exact font which should be used , as people with visual impairments , people with low-res portable devices , or people whose native language is n't based on a latin script , might have extreme difficulty reading it .
However , if you specify that the title is to be in a cursive font , then browsers could simply ship with nice cursive font settings by defaultWhat 's the point ?
All of those fine-grained definitions ( that , IMHO , do n't include " fantasy " or " futuristic " - those probably fall under " decorative " , no ?
) matter to graphic designers , but mean little to the general public .
And a graphic designer does n't choose a font just because it 's " transitional serif font " , or even because it 's a font with a certain x-height or a certain typographic color - he chooses it because it looks good in a certain situation , something that often comes down to specific letter shapes.In my opinion , serif , sans-serif ( and maybe you could add slab-serif ) are good enough , because a layman can easily tell those apart .
Defining fonts as " humanist serif " or " modern serif " does n't really matter to the users ( who ca n't tell the difference ) , and is equally useless to the designers ( who just want Garamond or Bodoni ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web page in the example really has no place specifying the exact font which should be used, as people with visual impairments, people with low-res portable devices, or people whose native language isn't based on a latin script, might have extreme difficulty reading it.
However, if you specify that the title is to be in a cursive font, then browsers could simply ship with nice cursive font settings by defaultWhat's the point?
All of those fine-grained definitions (that, IMHO, don't include "fantasy" or "futuristic" - those probably fall under "decorative", no?
) matter to graphic designers, but mean little to the general public.
And a graphic designer doesn't choose a font just because it's "transitional serif font", or even because it's a font with a certain x-height or a certain typographic color - he chooses it because it looks good in a certain situation, something that often comes down to specific letter shapes.In my opinion, serif, sans-serif (and maybe you could add slab-serif) are good enough, because a layman can easily tell those apart.
Defining fonts as "humanist serif" or "modern serif" doesn't really matter to the users (who can't tell the difference), and is equally useless to the designers (who just want Garamond or Bodoni).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715973</id>
	<title>Oh the agony...</title>
	<author>GigaHurtsMyRobot</author>
	<datestamp>1247755860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now instead of quickly rendered and clearly legible standard fonts, web pages will be burdened with additional downloads, rendering changes, and shitty shitty script and graffiti fonts.  I'd like to turn this functionality off, please, and prevent my browser from wasting bandwidth on downloading these fonts...  Haven't there also been font-based exploits?  No thanks!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now instead of quickly rendered and clearly legible standard fonts , web pages will be burdened with additional downloads , rendering changes , and shitty shitty script and graffiti fonts .
I 'd like to turn this functionality off , please , and prevent my browser from wasting bandwidth on downloading these fonts... Have n't there also been font-based exploits ?
No thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now instead of quickly rendered and clearly legible standard fonts, web pages will be burdened with additional downloads, rendering changes, and shitty shitty script and graffiti fonts.
I'd like to turn this functionality off, please, and prevent my browser from wasting bandwidth on downloading these fonts...  Haven't there also been font-based exploits?
No thanks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716527</id>
	<title>Doesn't work on Linux</title>
	<author>Kickasso</author>
	<datestamp>1247758380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All characters are blank.</p><p>Slashdotters are happy with their Windows machines, it seems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All characters are blank.Slashdotters are happy with their Windows machines , it seems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All characters are blank.Slashdotters are happy with their Windows machines, it seems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718191</id>
	<title>Re:Abused but Necessary</title>
	<author>pamri</author>
	<datestamp>1247764560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it has its uses as a replacement for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic\_fonts" title="wikipedia.org">Dynamic fonts</a> [wikipedia.org].

Dynamic fonts was mostly useful for Indic and other complex scripts at a time when Unicode was still nascent and there were still challenges in getting Indic and other scripts rendered properly. Publishing houses (all of them earlier and most of them now) use an ASCII based font and push dynamic fonts to IE users while expecting other browser users to download them. While Unicode should make this moot, slow adaption of Unicode by publishers and users  and the fact that by default, most Windows XP installs did not come with Indic pre-configured means there is still  market for this hack.  Publishers could push either their ASCII hack font or Unicode font to users this way at least until there is more mainstream adoption of Unicode and in the process help non-technical people, especially those not using IE, access to content with less issues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it has its uses as a replacement for Dynamic fonts [ wikipedia.org ] .
Dynamic fonts was mostly useful for Indic and other complex scripts at a time when Unicode was still nascent and there were still challenges in getting Indic and other scripts rendered properly .
Publishing houses ( all of them earlier and most of them now ) use an ASCII based font and push dynamic fonts to IE users while expecting other browser users to download them .
While Unicode should make this moot , slow adaption of Unicode by publishers and users and the fact that by default , most Windows XP installs did not come with Indic pre-configured means there is still market for this hack .
Publishers could push either their ASCII hack font or Unicode font to users this way at least until there is more mainstream adoption of Unicode and in the process help non-technical people , especially those not using IE , access to content with less issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it has its uses as a replacement for Dynamic fonts [wikipedia.org].
Dynamic fonts was mostly useful for Indic and other complex scripts at a time when Unicode was still nascent and there were still challenges in getting Indic and other scripts rendered properly.
Publishing houses (all of them earlier and most of them now) use an ASCII based font and push dynamic fonts to IE users while expecting other browser users to download them.
While Unicode should make this moot, slow adaption of Unicode by publishers and users  and the fact that by default, most Windows XP installs did not come with Indic pre-configured means there is still  market for this hack.
Publishers could push either their ASCII hack font or Unicode font to users this way at least until there is more mainstream adoption of Unicode and in the process help non-technical people, especially those not using IE, access to content with less issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716369</id>
	<title>Re:Oh Lord!</title>
	<author>wisnoskij</author>
	<datestamp>1247757600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>looked horrible on mine to.<br>
Now not only will we have to worry about horrible colors and sizes but styles as well.<br>
Not that this is a bad feature to have, but it will probably cause more bad then good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>looked horrible on mine to .
Now not only will we have to worry about horrible colors and sizes but styles as well .
Not that this is a bad feature to have , but it will probably cause more bad then good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>looked horrible on mine to.
Now not only will we have to worry about horrible colors and sizes but styles as well.
Not that this is a bad feature to have, but it will probably cause more bad then good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716209</id>
	<title>Ancientech?</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1247756820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't this already possible years ago?  I seem to remember seeing LOTS about it back in 2001 or so, including way too complex issues like how to encode the data, and how many glyphs could be included due to licensing restrictions.  It was my understanding that people simply ignored it because it was a crap (and overcomplicated) idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't this already possible years ago ?
I seem to remember seeing LOTS about it back in 2001 or so , including way too complex issues like how to encode the data , and how many glyphs could be included due to licensing restrictions .
It was my understanding that people simply ignored it because it was a crap ( and overcomplicated ) idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't this already possible years ago?
I seem to remember seeing LOTS about it back in 2001 or so, including way too complex issues like how to encode the data, and how many glyphs could be included due to licensing restrictions.
It was my understanding that people simply ignored it because it was a crap (and overcomplicated) idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28728723</id>
	<title>Not news</title>
	<author>wye43</author>
	<datestamp>1247840760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Custom fonts on web pages were possible 10 years ago.<br>
Someone is trying to squeeze money out of an old technology that was not used too much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Custom fonts on web pages were possible 10 years ago .
Someone is trying to squeeze money out of an old technology that was not used too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Custom fonts on web pages were possible 10 years ago.
Someone is trying to squeeze money out of an old technology that was not used too much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715911</id>
	<title>Frosty Piss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247755620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Prosty Fiss</htmltext>
<tokenext>Prosty Fiss</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prosty Fiss</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28726239</id>
	<title>Re:Fonts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247766900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bandwidth? At 50-100k they are not that much compared to swf files or large images previously used (also, you can cache them)</p></div><p>This might not be a problem with Latin fonts, but for other scripts (like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasta\%CA\%BFl\%C4\%ABq\_script" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Nastaliq</a> [wikipedia.org] -- used mainly for writing Urdu and Persian), bandwidth can become a valid concern. Using the current OpenType features, it <em>is</em> possible to create good Nastaliq fonts (e.g. <a href="http://www.crulp.org/software/localization/Fonts/nafeesNastaleeq.html" title="crulp.org" rel="nofollow">this one</a> [crulp.org]), but due to hundreds of contextual glyphs and their respective joining rules (which are needed to maintain the "elegance" of Nastaliq), such fonts are extremely slow when being rendered. The current solution to this is to create Nastaliq fonts that use ligatures, which does speed up the rendering considerably, but also makes the font size huge. (<a href="http://alvi.urdushare.net/blog/200811/download-alvi-nastaleeq/" title="urdushare.net" rel="nofollow">This</a> [urdushare.net] ligature based font, for example, is 9.11 MiB.)</p><p>Now Urdu is the national language of Pakistan, where a large percentage of people still use dial-up Internet access. Imagine a person who is trying to read some document in Urdu on the web, and has to wait for about half an hour before the horrible characters on his screen become legible (do keep in mind that Urdu/Persian/Arabic glyphs in most Latin fonts are quite ugly to look at).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bandwidth ?
At 50-100k they are not that much compared to swf files or large images previously used ( also , you can cache them ) This might not be a problem with Latin fonts , but for other scripts ( like Nastaliq [ wikipedia.org ] -- used mainly for writing Urdu and Persian ) , bandwidth can become a valid concern .
Using the current OpenType features , it is possible to create good Nastaliq fonts ( e.g .
this one [ crulp.org ] ) , but due to hundreds of contextual glyphs and their respective joining rules ( which are needed to maintain the " elegance " of Nastaliq ) , such fonts are extremely slow when being rendered .
The current solution to this is to create Nastaliq fonts that use ligatures , which does speed up the rendering considerably , but also makes the font size huge .
( This [ urdushare.net ] ligature based font , for example , is 9.11 MiB .
) Now Urdu is the national language of Pakistan , where a large percentage of people still use dial-up Internet access .
Imagine a person who is trying to read some document in Urdu on the web , and has to wait for about half an hour before the horrible characters on his screen become legible ( do keep in mind that Urdu/Persian/Arabic glyphs in most Latin fonts are quite ugly to look at ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bandwidth?
At 50-100k they are not that much compared to swf files or large images previously used (also, you can cache them)This might not be a problem with Latin fonts, but for other scripts (like Nastaliq [wikipedia.org] -- used mainly for writing Urdu and Persian), bandwidth can become a valid concern.
Using the current OpenType features, it is possible to create good Nastaliq fonts (e.g.
this one [crulp.org]), but due to hundreds of contextual glyphs and their respective joining rules (which are needed to maintain the "elegance" of Nastaliq), such fonts are extremely slow when being rendered.
The current solution to this is to create Nastaliq fonts that use ligatures, which does speed up the rendering considerably, but also makes the font size huge.
(This [urdushare.net] ligature based font, for example, is 9.11 MiB.
)Now Urdu is the national language of Pakistan, where a large percentage of people still use dial-up Internet access.
Imagine a person who is trying to read some document in Urdu on the web, and has to wait for about half an hour before the horrible characters on his screen become legible (do keep in mind that Urdu/Persian/Arabic glyphs in most Latin fonts are quite ugly to look at).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716319</id>
	<title>typekit</title>
	<author>macshit</author>
	<datestamp>1247757360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what's the deal with "typekit"?
</p><p>Their <a href="http://blog.typekit.com/2009/05/27/introducing-typekit/" title="typekit.com">blog</a> [typekit.com] grandly announces (or at least strongly implies) that they've solved the licensing/theft/etc problems with downloadable fonts, without using DRM, but while there's a lot of handwaving, they don't actually seem to go into any detail about <em>how</em> they've "solved" it.
</p><p>Does anybody know?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what 's the deal with " typekit " ?
Their blog [ typekit.com ] grandly announces ( or at least strongly implies ) that they 've solved the licensing/theft/etc problems with downloadable fonts , without using DRM , but while there 's a lot of handwaving , they do n't actually seem to go into any detail about how they 've " solved " it .
Does anybody know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what's the deal with "typekit"?
Their blog [typekit.com] grandly announces (or at least strongly implies) that they've solved the licensing/theft/etc problems with downloadable fonts, without using DRM, but while there's a lot of handwaving, they don't actually seem to go into any detail about how they've "solved" it.
Does anybody know?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28722095</id>
	<title>Re:Web developers can now easily embed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247736120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>kerning</p><p>FTFY</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>kerningFTFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kerningFTFY</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716601</id>
	<title>we have a good saying in German ...</title>
	<author>Lazy Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1247758680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... it goes like this: "it's as useful as a goiter". Sums it up quite well, I think.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... it goes like this : " it 's as useful as a goiter " .
Sums it up quite well , I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... it goes like this: "it's as useful as a goiter".
Sums it up quite well, I think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716467</id>
	<title>quality is quality, however...</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1247758140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>a high quality typeface is hard to make.
<p>
 I should know - I used to do it for a living. However, they are easily stolen, and fonts that once cost serious bucks are now (essentially) free. Which is why I don't do it for a living anymore. But I'm not discussing that - what I am pointing at is if you can embed fonts in a page, it is a trivial exercise to open a font, "clean" the points (creating a new drawing of the font), and then export the thing with a new name. So, you could take Arial, fry it up, and come out with Ariel. Now someone might notice something fishy about Ariel, noting it similarity to Arial. In the USA, the DESIGN of a font  is something you cannot copyright. Only the software that is the font file itself. This is what torpedoed the type industry back in the mid 1990s, in Adobe vs SSI (?) case in Florida.
</p><p>
Sure, SSI got sued by Adobe for this, but that was pre-www - back in the day of centralised font distribution systems on floppies or CDs. MS or Adobe would have to chase down thousands of people with take-down notices. The FROEI (financial return on energy invested) would be microscopic and an endless battle due to variations in international laws.
</p><p>
Another strategy would be DRM. This would work on new DRM fonts, but there are literally tens of thousands of older fonts (from ancient PostScript to TrueType to newer OpenType) that are not DRM'd and they would be all over the place, effectively smothering any DRM font system.
</p><p>
Flash was developed initially as an animation system, but quickly it became obvious that it opened up font use, even if the test is not animated. Flash has its own and deeply obvious problems, and I look forward to its death. That said, at the time it served a useful purpose. With AJAX and now font-face, I don't see much future for Flash at all, outside of its original use as an animation engine.
</p><p>
I'm of mixed feelings on this - as I noted, a good font is hard to make. However, the basic digital fonts were developed way back in the 1980s and early 1990s and have only been updated for new technology (unicode, opentype, etc.) and one would think that there is little point to grinding more and more out of them, except in terms of petty greed. If Adobe had their way, we never would have seen TrueType and you would have to pay $100 for every typeface and each would have to be installed on only your machine. Of course, it would look very good. If MS had their way, everything would be TrueType and you could only use the fonts that come installed with the OS, and any extra would be excluded at the OS level... and they would all suck. So, the piracy of the 1990s (fueled by the ancient Titan and venerable program, Fontographer) led to an explosion of fonts. Most of them craptastic, but a true example of digital creativity. Some/Many were obvious rip-offs, but their hinting was often crap - delta hints were almost always missing, their letterspacing worse, and the kerning either atrocious or non-existent.
</p><p>
Tools, including Fontographer (resurrected by FontLab, bless their hearts) have improved since 1993, and so have "amateur" fonts. However, the market for fonts is still very poor as the saturation level increases daily.
</p><p>
Net result? If MS adopts @font-face for IE, game over (in a good way), and we will see a flowering of online type design. If MS drags its heels on this, @font-face could die on the vine, and we'll be stuck with Arial, for a VERY long time.
</p><p>
So, here's hoping @font-face spreads like crazy, and we can finally get some decent looking pages going...
</p><p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a high quality typeface is hard to make .
I should know - I used to do it for a living .
However , they are easily stolen , and fonts that once cost serious bucks are now ( essentially ) free .
Which is why I do n't do it for a living anymore .
But I 'm not discussing that - what I am pointing at is if you can embed fonts in a page , it is a trivial exercise to open a font , " clean " the points ( creating a new drawing of the font ) , and then export the thing with a new name .
So , you could take Arial , fry it up , and come out with Ariel .
Now someone might notice something fishy about Ariel , noting it similarity to Arial .
In the USA , the DESIGN of a font is something you can not copyright .
Only the software that is the font file itself .
This is what torpedoed the type industry back in the mid 1990s , in Adobe vs SSI ( ?
) case in Florida .
Sure , SSI got sued by Adobe for this , but that was pre-www - back in the day of centralised font distribution systems on floppies or CDs .
MS or Adobe would have to chase down thousands of people with take-down notices .
The FROEI ( financial return on energy invested ) would be microscopic and an endless battle due to variations in international laws .
Another strategy would be DRM .
This would work on new DRM fonts , but there are literally tens of thousands of older fonts ( from ancient PostScript to TrueType to newer OpenType ) that are not DRM 'd and they would be all over the place , effectively smothering any DRM font system .
Flash was developed initially as an animation system , but quickly it became obvious that it opened up font use , even if the test is not animated .
Flash has its own and deeply obvious problems , and I look forward to its death .
That said , at the time it served a useful purpose .
With AJAX and now font-face , I do n't see much future for Flash at all , outside of its original use as an animation engine .
I 'm of mixed feelings on this - as I noted , a good font is hard to make .
However , the basic digital fonts were developed way back in the 1980s and early 1990s and have only been updated for new technology ( unicode , opentype , etc .
) and one would think that there is little point to grinding more and more out of them , except in terms of petty greed .
If Adobe had their way , we never would have seen TrueType and you would have to pay $ 100 for every typeface and each would have to be installed on only your machine .
Of course , it would look very good .
If MS had their way , everything would be TrueType and you could only use the fonts that come installed with the OS , and any extra would be excluded at the OS level... and they would all suck .
So , the piracy of the 1990s ( fueled by the ancient Titan and venerable program , Fontographer ) led to an explosion of fonts .
Most of them craptastic , but a true example of digital creativity .
Some/Many were obvious rip-offs , but their hinting was often crap - delta hints were almost always missing , their letterspacing worse , and the kerning either atrocious or non-existent .
Tools , including Fontographer ( resurrected by FontLab , bless their hearts ) have improved since 1993 , and so have " amateur " fonts .
However , the market for fonts is still very poor as the saturation level increases daily .
Net result ?
If MS adopts @ font-face for IE , game over ( in a good way ) , and we will see a flowering of online type design .
If MS drags its heels on this , @ font-face could die on the vine , and we 'll be stuck with Arial , for a VERY long time .
So , here 's hoping @ font-face spreads like crazy , and we can finally get some decent looking pages going.. . RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a high quality typeface is hard to make.
I should know - I used to do it for a living.
However, they are easily stolen, and fonts that once cost serious bucks are now (essentially) free.
Which is why I don't do it for a living anymore.
But I'm not discussing that - what I am pointing at is if you can embed fonts in a page, it is a trivial exercise to open a font, "clean" the points (creating a new drawing of the font), and then export the thing with a new name.
So, you could take Arial, fry it up, and come out with Ariel.
Now someone might notice something fishy about Ariel, noting it similarity to Arial.
In the USA, the DESIGN of a font  is something you cannot copyright.
Only the software that is the font file itself.
This is what torpedoed the type industry back in the mid 1990s, in Adobe vs SSI (?
) case in Florida.
Sure, SSI got sued by Adobe for this, but that was pre-www - back in the day of centralised font distribution systems on floppies or CDs.
MS or Adobe would have to chase down thousands of people with take-down notices.
The FROEI (financial return on energy invested) would be microscopic and an endless battle due to variations in international laws.
Another strategy would be DRM.
This would work on new DRM fonts, but there are literally tens of thousands of older fonts (from ancient PostScript to TrueType to newer OpenType) that are not DRM'd and they would be all over the place, effectively smothering any DRM font system.
Flash was developed initially as an animation system, but quickly it became obvious that it opened up font use, even if the test is not animated.
Flash has its own and deeply obvious problems, and I look forward to its death.
That said, at the time it served a useful purpose.
With AJAX and now font-face, I don't see much future for Flash at all, outside of its original use as an animation engine.
I'm of mixed feelings on this - as I noted, a good font is hard to make.
However, the basic digital fonts were developed way back in the 1980s and early 1990s and have only been updated for new technology (unicode, opentype, etc.
) and one would think that there is little point to grinding more and more out of them, except in terms of petty greed.
If Adobe had their way, we never would have seen TrueType and you would have to pay $100 for every typeface and each would have to be installed on only your machine.
Of course, it would look very good.
If MS had their way, everything would be TrueType and you could only use the fonts that come installed with the OS, and any extra would be excluded at the OS level... and they would all suck.
So, the piracy of the 1990s (fueled by the ancient Titan and venerable program, Fontographer) led to an explosion of fonts.
Most of them craptastic, but a true example of digital creativity.
Some/Many were obvious rip-offs, but their hinting was often crap - delta hints were almost always missing, their letterspacing worse, and the kerning either atrocious or non-existent.
Tools, including Fontographer (resurrected by FontLab, bless their hearts) have improved since 1993, and so have "amateur" fonts.
However, the market for fonts is still very poor as the saturation level increases daily.
Net result?
If MS adopts @font-face for IE, game over (in a good way), and we will see a flowering of online type design.
If MS drags its heels on this, @font-face could die on the vine, and we'll be stuck with Arial, for a VERY long time.
So, here's hoping @font-face spreads like crazy, and we can finally get some decent looking pages going...

RS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716149</id>
	<title>To disable @font-face in Firefox 3.5</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247756580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In about:config, set gfx.downloadable\_fonts.enabled to false and restart the browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In about : config , set gfx.downloadable \ _fonts.enabled to false and restart the browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In about:config, set gfx.downloadable\_fonts.enabled to false and restart the browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28722209</id>
	<title>Re:cutting edge considerd harmfull</title>
	<author>Firehed</author>
	<datestamp>1247736540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a CSS property being unsupported breaks the layout, don't use it.  Most of CSS3 stuff is page enhancement (when used appropriately) - rounded corners, text and box shadows, etc.  There's no reason to avoid using stuff like that.  I could argue that even CSS3 columns are safe to use, since the browser will simply fall back to one wide block of text rather than several narrow ones if the property is unsupported.  Much nicer degradation than checking out pretty much anything in IE6 that was built to standards, with elements being shifted about the page seemingly at random.</p><p>If 100\% consistency is your only concern, then obviously avoid anything that's less than ten years old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a CSS property being unsupported breaks the layout , do n't use it .
Most of CSS3 stuff is page enhancement ( when used appropriately ) - rounded corners , text and box shadows , etc .
There 's no reason to avoid using stuff like that .
I could argue that even CSS3 columns are safe to use , since the browser will simply fall back to one wide block of text rather than several narrow ones if the property is unsupported .
Much nicer degradation than checking out pretty much anything in IE6 that was built to standards , with elements being shifted about the page seemingly at random.If 100 \ % consistency is your only concern , then obviously avoid anything that 's less than ten years old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a CSS property being unsupported breaks the layout, don't use it.
Most of CSS3 stuff is page enhancement (when used appropriately) - rounded corners, text and box shadows, etc.
There's no reason to avoid using stuff like that.
I could argue that even CSS3 columns are safe to use, since the browser will simply fall back to one wide block of text rather than several narrow ones if the property is unsupported.
Much nicer degradation than checking out pretty much anything in IE6 that was built to standards, with elements being shifted about the page seemingly at random.If 100\% consistency is your only concern, then obviously avoid anything that's less than ten years old.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716625</id>
	<title>Re:Self-downloading fonts...</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1247758740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wondered about it for years. Why antivirus apps put special interest in TTF files while doing a full system scan? I remember as early as F-Prot for DOS.</p><p>Don't tell me that TTF can include executable in some form? It sounds stupid but you know, CHM files can actually carry viruses and execute them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wondered about it for years .
Why antivirus apps put special interest in TTF files while doing a full system scan ?
I remember as early as F-Prot for DOS.Do n't tell me that TTF can include executable in some form ?
It sounds stupid but you know , CHM files can actually carry viruses and execute them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wondered about it for years.
Why antivirus apps put special interest in TTF files while doing a full system scan?
I remember as early as F-Prot for DOS.Don't tell me that TTF can include executable in some form?
It sounds stupid but you know, CHM files can actually carry viruses and execute them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716145</id>
	<title>You insensitive clod.</title>
	<author>thomasdz</author>
	<datestamp>1247756580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Lynx!<br>VT100 24 lines by 80 characters (or 132)...the way God intended the web to be seen</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Lynx ! VT100 24 lines by 80 characters ( or 132 ) ...the way God intended the web to be seen</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Lynx!VT100 24 lines by 80 characters (or 132)...the way God intended the web to be seen</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724079</id>
	<title>Re:Licensing nightmare?</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1247745000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I download a picture, let's say something by Dayvid LeMmon (yes that's a real name, <a href="http://www.dayvidlemmon.com/" title="dayvidlemmon.com">http://www.dayvidlemmon.com/</a> [dayvidlemmon.com] ), then when I insert a photo of my own into a document I can't simply select "Dayvid LeMmon" from a drop down list to make my photo take on the distinctive style of LeMmon.</p><p>With fonts I can download a font and use it to automatically change my texts appearance to take on the distinctive style of the font author. Fonts and image differ in their nature and attitudes to fonts and images differ too.</p><p>To apply one of Dan Zadorozny's styles to a section of text takes 2 clicks of the mouse. To apply LeMmon's style to my images requires LeMmon to retake them (yes that could be taken by someone else or mocked up on photoshop the point is far more effort).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I download a picture , let 's say something by Dayvid LeMmon ( yes that 's a real name , http : //www.dayvidlemmon.com/ [ dayvidlemmon.com ] ) , then when I insert a photo of my own into a document I ca n't simply select " Dayvid LeMmon " from a drop down list to make my photo take on the distinctive style of LeMmon.With fonts I can download a font and use it to automatically change my texts appearance to take on the distinctive style of the font author .
Fonts and image differ in their nature and attitudes to fonts and images differ too.To apply one of Dan Zadorozny 's styles to a section of text takes 2 clicks of the mouse .
To apply LeMmon 's style to my images requires LeMmon to retake them ( yes that could be taken by someone else or mocked up on photoshop the point is far more effort ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I download a picture, let's say something by Dayvid LeMmon (yes that's a real name, http://www.dayvidlemmon.com/ [dayvidlemmon.com] ), then when I insert a photo of my own into a document I can't simply select "Dayvid LeMmon" from a drop down list to make my photo take on the distinctive style of LeMmon.With fonts I can download a font and use it to automatically change my texts appearance to take on the distinctive style of the font author.
Fonts and image differ in their nature and attitudes to fonts and images differ too.To apply one of Dan Zadorozny's styles to a section of text takes 2 clicks of the mouse.
To apply LeMmon's style to my images requires LeMmon to retake them (yes that could be taken by someone else or mocked up on photoshop the point is far more effort).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717545</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on a sec...</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1247762220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There aren't many font rendering subsystems there right? When I write this text, Opera calls OS X font rendering subsystem to draw them for example. On Linux it would probably call freetype and windows something else.</p><p>What if there is some unknown exploit in one of these subsystems but impractical to abuse as people really don't install fonts to their operating systems in daily basis? With embedding font, you have the magic wand. Just visiting a page, user can download your exploit and "execute" it. It would need a really advanced heuristic solution to figure it out and until it reaches some security guy/company it will be too late.</p><p>Remember how evil Windows GDI bug was? Or the zlib issue which triggered a cross platform massive update?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are n't many font rendering subsystems there right ?
When I write this text , Opera calls OS X font rendering subsystem to draw them for example .
On Linux it would probably call freetype and windows something else.What if there is some unknown exploit in one of these subsystems but impractical to abuse as people really do n't install fonts to their operating systems in daily basis ?
With embedding font , you have the magic wand .
Just visiting a page , user can download your exploit and " execute " it .
It would need a really advanced heuristic solution to figure it out and until it reaches some security guy/company it will be too late.Remember how evil Windows GDI bug was ?
Or the zlib issue which triggered a cross platform massive update ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There aren't many font rendering subsystems there right?
When I write this text, Opera calls OS X font rendering subsystem to draw them for example.
On Linux it would probably call freetype and windows something else.What if there is some unknown exploit in one of these subsystems but impractical to abuse as people really don't install fonts to their operating systems in daily basis?
With embedding font, you have the magic wand.
Just visiting a page, user can download your exploit and "execute" it.
It would need a really advanced heuristic solution to figure it out and until it reaches some security guy/company it will be too late.Remember how evil Windows GDI bug was?
Or the zlib issue which triggered a cross platform massive update?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716159</id>
	<title>Yes, but we need semantic fonts</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1247756580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, we do need more fonts, but we need semantic ones.  This is the entirely wrong way to go about it.</p><p>As anyone who's looked at their (good) browser's settings knows, the web supports standard "semantic" or functional font specifications, like sans, sans-serif, and cursive.  You can assign these to things like Arial, Times, and Isabella or whatever cursive font you want.</p><p>The web page in the example really has no place specifying the exact font which should be used, as people with visual impairments, people with low-res portable devices, or people whose native language isn't based on a latin script, might have extreme difficulty reading it.  However, if you specify that the title is to be in a cursive font, then browsers could simply ship with nice cursive font settings by default.  This would allow pages to look good in the device in question, but also be fully configurable --- including for those art-nuts who care to pay to have the very best of fonts and displays.</p><p>However, the idea has not been taken far enough.  Besides sans, sans-serif, and cursive, we could use lots of extra "semantic" font names like fantasy, futuristic, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , we do need more fonts , but we need semantic ones .
This is the entirely wrong way to go about it.As anyone who 's looked at their ( good ) browser 's settings knows , the web supports standard " semantic " or functional font specifications , like sans , sans-serif , and cursive .
You can assign these to things like Arial , Times , and Isabella or whatever cursive font you want.The web page in the example really has no place specifying the exact font which should be used , as people with visual impairments , people with low-res portable devices , or people whose native language is n't based on a latin script , might have extreme difficulty reading it .
However , if you specify that the title is to be in a cursive font , then browsers could simply ship with nice cursive font settings by default .
This would allow pages to look good in the device in question , but also be fully configurable --- including for those art-nuts who care to pay to have the very best of fonts and displays.However , the idea has not been taken far enough .
Besides sans , sans-serif , and cursive , we could use lots of extra " semantic " font names like fantasy , futuristic , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, we do need more fonts, but we need semantic ones.
This is the entirely wrong way to go about it.As anyone who's looked at their (good) browser's settings knows, the web supports standard "semantic" or functional font specifications, like sans, sans-serif, and cursive.
You can assign these to things like Arial, Times, and Isabella or whatever cursive font you want.The web page in the example really has no place specifying the exact font which should be used, as people with visual impairments, people with low-res portable devices, or people whose native language isn't based on a latin script, might have extreme difficulty reading it.
However, if you specify that the title is to be in a cursive font, then browsers could simply ship with nice cursive font settings by default.
This would allow pages to look good in the device in question, but also be fully configurable --- including for those art-nuts who care to pay to have the very best of fonts and displays.However, the idea has not been taken far enough.
Besides sans, sans-serif, and cursive, we could use lots of extra "semantic" font names like fantasy, futuristic, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716951</id>
	<title>Re:typekit</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1247759820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe it is one of those arrangements where they'll let you in on the secret, eventually, if you donate a block of venture capital...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it is one of those arrangements where they 'll let you in on the secret , eventually , if you donate a block of venture capital.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it is one of those arrangements where they'll let you in on the secret, eventually, if you donate a block of venture capital...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28720847</id>
	<title>Re:Web developers can now easily embed...</title>
	<author>WraithKenny</author>
	<datestamp>1247774220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... and web browsers can easily be set to ignore.

The average "Web developer" knows nothing about type, and thinks "kearning" is something you do to corn on the cob. Read a whole essay in Trainwreck Bold Oblique? No thanks.

kulakovich</p></div><p>That average "Web developer" will "design" crap sites that I don't go to anyway. Real developers, the ones who actually have jobs, will improve USABILITY, with well designed, well used typefaces.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and web browsers can easily be set to ignore .
The average " Web developer " knows nothing about type , and thinks " kearning " is something you do to corn on the cob .
Read a whole essay in Trainwreck Bold Oblique ?
No thanks .
kulakovichThat average " Web developer " will " design " crap sites that I do n't go to anyway .
Real developers , the ones who actually have jobs , will improve USABILITY , with well designed , well used typefaces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... and web browsers can easily be set to ignore.
The average "Web developer" knows nothing about type, and thinks "kearning" is something you do to corn on the cob.
Read a whole essay in Trainwreck Bold Oblique?
No thanks.
kulakovichThat average "Web developer" will "design" crap sites that I don't go to anyway.
Real developers, the ones who actually have jobs, will improve USABILITY, with well designed, well used typefaces.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716975</id>
	<title>Re:Kill Flash!</title>
	<author>Kozz</author>
	<datestamp>1247759880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you try the embedded video on the Mozilla page?  Shit, it was worse than waiting for (....buffering....) RealPlayer.  Did the Mozilla devs do a poor job by selecting a fat video, or will all implementations look that horrible?  When I saw it, I was really disappointed, hoping (like you) that this could diminish Flash usage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you try the embedded video on the Mozilla page ?
Shit , it was worse than waiting for ( ....buffering.... ) RealPlayer .
Did the Mozilla devs do a poor job by selecting a fat video , or will all implementations look that horrible ?
When I saw it , I was really disappointed , hoping ( like you ) that this could diminish Flash usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you try the embedded video on the Mozilla page?
Shit, it was worse than waiting for (....buffering....) RealPlayer.
Did the Mozilla devs do a poor job by selecting a fat video, or will all implementations look that horrible?
When I saw it, I was really disappointed, hoping (like you) that this could diminish Flash usage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717057</id>
	<title>Re:typekit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247760180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they told anyone how they did it, then it wouldn't work any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they told anyone how they did it , then it would n't work any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they told anyone how they did it, then it wouldn't work any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716179</id>
	<title>Re:Oh the agony...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247756700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you think you got those fat pipes to download more porn? You got it so webpages can be even more cluttered, bloated and web designers even more careless when loading their pages with useless junk.</p><p>It's a bit like machines getting faster so programmers don't have to optimize code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you think you got those fat pipes to download more porn ?
You got it so webpages can be even more cluttered , bloated and web designers even more careless when loading their pages with useless junk.It 's a bit like machines getting faster so programmers do n't have to optimize code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you think you got those fat pipes to download more porn?
You got it so webpages can be even more cluttered, bloated and web designers even more careless when loading their pages with useless junk.It's a bit like machines getting faster so programmers don't have to optimize code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28721975</id>
	<title>Re: Oh Lord!</title>
	<author>ToasterMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1247735580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is a demo, not an example of perfection, and it looks fine on my Mac (with Safari 4)!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a demo , not an example of perfection , and it looks fine on my Mac ( with Safari 4 ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a demo, not an example of perfection, and it looks fine on my Mac (with Safari 4)!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28751321</id>
	<title>Re:Web pages...</title>
	<author>nidarus</author>
	<datestamp>1248008580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This, however, is not a clever way of "enhancing" web pages. We have the information we need, and we're satisfied. No need to put bells and whistles on it. If it were up to me (which it isn't), there would be no such thing as "web design".</p></div><p>Then this discussion is not for you. If you don't like web design, it's trivial to disable CSS in your browser, or just use Lynx.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This , however , is not a clever way of " enhancing " web pages .
We have the information we need , and we 're satisfied .
No need to put bells and whistles on it .
If it were up to me ( which it is n't ) , there would be no such thing as " web design " .Then this discussion is not for you .
If you do n't like web design , it 's trivial to disable CSS in your browser , or just use Lynx .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This, however, is not a clever way of "enhancing" web pages.
We have the information we need, and we're satisfied.
No need to put bells and whistles on it.
If it were up to me (which it isn't), there would be no such thing as "web design".Then this discussion is not for you.
If you don't like web design, it's trivial to disable CSS in your browser, or just use Lynx.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719387</id>
	<title>Re:Web pages...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247768820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the kind of pages that you're talking about I agree completely - CSS and the rest of it are a pain in the arse.</p><p>Do the guys that do css ever try out the pages that they create?<br>Does the heavy feel go unnoticed? One gets the feeling that the sluggishness and loading waits are hidden in the shade of their "artistic creation."</p><p>If you need things to look good or have some functionality, then you use Flash, if you can. Otherwise just focus on making stuff plain and accessible to all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the kind of pages that you 're talking about I agree completely - CSS and the rest of it are a pain in the arse.Do the guys that do css ever try out the pages that they create ? Does the heavy feel go unnoticed ?
One gets the feeling that the sluggishness and loading waits are hidden in the shade of their " artistic creation .
" If you need things to look good or have some functionality , then you use Flash , if you can .
Otherwise just focus on making stuff plain and accessible to all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the kind of pages that you're talking about I agree completely - CSS and the rest of it are a pain in the arse.Do the guys that do css ever try out the pages that they create?Does the heavy feel go unnoticed?
One gets the feeling that the sluggishness and loading waits are hidden in the shade of their "artistic creation.
"If you need things to look good or have some functionality, then you use Flash, if you can.
Otherwise just focus on making stuff plain and accessible to all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717827</id>
	<title>Re:Self-downloading fonts...</title>
	<author>wkurzius</author>
	<datestamp>1247763300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Name an innovation that hasn't been used for either sending out viruses or advancing the porn industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Name an innovation that has n't been used for either sending out viruses or advancing the porn industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Name an innovation that hasn't been used for either sending out viruses or advancing the porn industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28722727</id>
	<title>Re:Fonts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247738760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> Licensing? Nightmare</i></p><p>Not really.  Most commercial font designers are happy to provide an embedding license suitable for this application; many of them include such a license with their fonts by default anyway.</p><p><i> Bandwidth? Eek</i></p><p>Not really.  This will hopefully replace designers' habit of putting images of text on a page so that they can show it in the right font.  A typical font file is about 70k, and tools are available that will reduce this by excerpting only the characters you need for the page.  So pages using this technology will probably be not much heavier than pages that use the current alternative.</p><p><i>Security? Whoa!</i></p><p>Huh?  Why would downloading a font and rendering text using it be any more of a security issue than, say, downloading a vector graphics file and rendering it?</p><p><i> Compatibility? Doesn't downgrade nicely</i></p><p>Yes it does.  Just because some designers can't figure out how to make it downgrade...</p><p>To quote W3C's example:</p><p><tt>@font-face {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; font-family: Gentium;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; src: url(http://site/fonts/Gentium.ttf);<br>}</tt></p><p><tt>p { font-family: Gentium, serif; }</tt></p><p>Of course, you need to then design your site so that it works if the fallback font is picked, which the example site failed to do...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Licensing ?
NightmareNot really .
Most commercial font designers are happy to provide an embedding license suitable for this application ; many of them include such a license with their fonts by default anyway .
Bandwidth ? EekNot really .
This will hopefully replace designers ' habit of putting images of text on a page so that they can show it in the right font .
A typical font file is about 70k , and tools are available that will reduce this by excerpting only the characters you need for the page .
So pages using this technology will probably be not much heavier than pages that use the current alternative.Security ?
Whoa ! Huh ? Why would downloading a font and rendering text using it be any more of a security issue than , say , downloading a vector graphics file and rendering it ?
Compatibility ? Does n't downgrade nicelyYes it does .
Just because some designers ca n't figure out how to make it downgrade...To quote W3C 's example : @ font-face {     font-family : Gentium ;     src : url ( http : //site/fonts/Gentium.ttf ) ; } p { font-family : Gentium , serif ; } Of course , you need to then design your site so that it works if the fallback font is picked , which the example site failed to do.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Licensing?
NightmareNot really.
Most commercial font designers are happy to provide an embedding license suitable for this application; many of them include such a license with their fonts by default anyway.
Bandwidth? EekNot really.
This will hopefully replace designers' habit of putting images of text on a page so that they can show it in the right font.
A typical font file is about 70k, and tools are available that will reduce this by excerpting only the characters you need for the page.
So pages using this technology will probably be not much heavier than pages that use the current alternative.Security?
Whoa!Huh?  Why would downloading a font and rendering text using it be any more of a security issue than, say, downloading a vector graphics file and rendering it?
Compatibility? Doesn't downgrade nicelyYes it does.
Just because some designers can't figure out how to make it downgrade...To quote W3C's example:@font-face {
    font-family: Gentium;
    src: url(http://site/fonts/Gentium.ttf);}p { font-family: Gentium, serif; }Of course, you need to then design your site so that it works if the fallback font is picked, which the example site failed to do...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724337</id>
	<title>Re:Oh Lord!</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1247746500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome (despite what it says up there) does not show the Liza font, or any other on that page, from what I can see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome ( despite what it says up there ) does not show the Liza font , or any other on that page , from what I can see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome (despite what it says up there) does not show the Liza font, or any other on that page, from what I can see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716439</id>
	<title>Re:Fonts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247758020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Licensing? Nightmare.<br>Bandwidth? Eek.<br>Security? Whoa!<br>Compatibility? Doesn't downgrade nicely (that page looks horrible in a "stable" browser of today and is almost unreadable)<br>Gains? Geocities-like webpages that use every font they can just for the sake of it.</p></div><p>It's a good thing you actually used the word "font" in there - otherwise, I would've thought you'd dug out an old post from the 90s when images were first introduced to HTML.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Licensing ?
Nightmare.Bandwidth ? Eek.Security ?
Whoa ! Compatibility ? Does n't downgrade nicely ( that page looks horrible in a " stable " browser of today and is almost unreadable ) Gains ?
Geocities-like webpages that use every font they can just for the sake of it.It 's a good thing you actually used the word " font " in there - otherwise , I would 've thought you 'd dug out an old post from the 90s when images were first introduced to HTML .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Licensing?
Nightmare.Bandwidth? Eek.Security?
Whoa!Compatibility? Doesn't downgrade nicely (that page looks horrible in a "stable" browser of today and is almost unreadable)Gains?
Geocities-like webpages that use every font they can just for the sake of it.It's a good thing you actually used the word "font" in there - otherwise, I would've thought you'd dug out an old post from the 90s when images were first introduced to HTML.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716983</id>
	<title>Re:Oh Lord!</title>
	<author>TheBig1</author>
	<datestamp>1247759940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same here, and Camino doesn't seem to support downloadable fonts.  Oh well, I don't think I am missing anything...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here , and Camino does n't seem to support downloadable fonts .
Oh well , I do n't think I am missing anything.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here, and Camino doesn't seem to support downloadable fonts.
Oh well, I don't think I am missing anything...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716425</id>
	<title>Licensing nightmare?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247757960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why?</p><p>Why is font licensing any different from image licensing? The page directs you to (optionally) download font information. Your computer either does or does not. If it does, it uses the font information to render something on the page. As the server gave you this information when your computer asked for it, you legitimately have a copy. However, you are not allowed to redistribute this copy to a third party unless you have a license to do so, else you are in breach of copyright.</p><p>It's just a bunch more bits that you've downloaded off of a server. How are these bits any different from any other bits?</p><p>(Is there a missing href in the story?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ? Why is font licensing any different from image licensing ?
The page directs you to ( optionally ) download font information .
Your computer either does or does not .
If it does , it uses the font information to render something on the page .
As the server gave you this information when your computer asked for it , you legitimately have a copy .
However , you are not allowed to redistribute this copy to a third party unless you have a license to do so , else you are in breach of copyright.It 's just a bunch more bits that you 've downloaded off of a server .
How are these bits any different from any other bits ?
( Is there a missing href in the story ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?Why is font licensing any different from image licensing?
The page directs you to (optionally) download font information.
Your computer either does or does not.
If it does, it uses the font information to render something on the page.
As the server gave you this information when your computer asked for it, you legitimately have a copy.
However, you are not allowed to redistribute this copy to a third party unless you have a license to do so, else you are in breach of copyright.It's just a bunch more bits that you've downloaded off of a server.
How are these bits any different from any other bits?
(Is there a missing href in the story?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716107</id>
	<title>Re:licensing issues for fonts</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247756400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What licensing issues?</p><p>That some people want to be paid for their work is not an issue. That people can use unlicensed fonts isn't really any different than today (I suppose font designers might be a bit less happy with a solution that is promiscuous with their precious data).</p><p>An easy workaround would be for someone like the Mozilla foundation to spend a few million dollars making sure that a decent variety of fonts were available under liberal licenses. They may not feel like it, but they could certainly afford it, and if a few million dollars isn't enough to generate a couple of dozen decent fonts, I would be pretty surprised. Amusingly, Microsoft felt the need to do something like this a decade ago, and they actually did it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What licensing issues ? That some people want to be paid for their work is not an issue .
That people can use unlicensed fonts is n't really any different than today ( I suppose font designers might be a bit less happy with a solution that is promiscuous with their precious data ) .An easy workaround would be for someone like the Mozilla foundation to spend a few million dollars making sure that a decent variety of fonts were available under liberal licenses .
They may not feel like it , but they could certainly afford it , and if a few million dollars is n't enough to generate a couple of dozen decent fonts , I would be pretty surprised .
Amusingly , Microsoft felt the need to do something like this a decade ago , and they actually did it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What licensing issues?That some people want to be paid for their work is not an issue.
That people can use unlicensed fonts isn't really any different than today (I suppose font designers might be a bit less happy with a solution that is promiscuous with their precious data).An easy workaround would be for someone like the Mozilla foundation to spend a few million dollars making sure that a decent variety of fonts were available under liberal licenses.
They may not feel like it, but they could certainly afford it, and if a few million dollars isn't enough to generate a couple of dozen decent fonts, I would be pretty surprised.
Amusingly, Microsoft felt the need to do something like this a decade ago, and they actually did it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919</id>
	<title>Oh Lord!</title>
	<author>fidget42</author>
	<datestamp>1247755680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That page looked terrible on my PC (with FireFox 3.5)!  I can easily see this getting abused.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That page looked terrible on my PC ( with FireFox 3.5 ) !
I can easily see this getting abused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That page looked terrible on my PC (with FireFox 3.5)!
I can easily see this getting abused.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716491</id>
	<title>mod 0p</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247758200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uand easy - only</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uand easy - only</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uand easy - only</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716357</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on a sec...</title>
	<author>ZackSchil</author>
	<datestamp>1247757600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What, like images, video, or plugin content like Flash games?
<br> <br>
Of course there are security risks. And if this tech uses system font APIs, interfaces not normally subjected to the same security scrutiny as those of, say, images, then there will need to be some security code auditing.
<br> <br>
I'm certain there will be a few exploit events before the situation settles down. But we can't stop the progress of useful functionality just because there might be some unknown security flaw. This an isn't ActiveX situation. Fonts do not contain executable code. A perfectly secure font reader should be relatively easy to write.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What , like images , video , or plugin content like Flash games ?
Of course there are security risks .
And if this tech uses system font APIs , interfaces not normally subjected to the same security scrutiny as those of , say , images , then there will need to be some security code auditing .
I 'm certain there will be a few exploit events before the situation settles down .
But we ca n't stop the progress of useful functionality just because there might be some unknown security flaw .
This an is n't ActiveX situation .
Fonts do not contain executable code .
A perfectly secure font reader should be relatively easy to write .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, like images, video, or plugin content like Flash games?
Of course there are security risks.
And if this tech uses system font APIs, interfaces not normally subjected to the same security scrutiny as those of, say, images, then there will need to be some security code auditing.
I'm certain there will be a few exploit events before the situation settles down.
But we can't stop the progress of useful functionality just because there might be some unknown security flaw.
This an isn't ActiveX situation.
Fonts do not contain executable code.
A perfectly secure font reader should be relatively easy to write.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717517</id>
	<title>Re:The new BLINK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247762040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>presumably the latter desiderata is the real goal, not pretty looking documents.</p><p>get off my lawn.</p></div><p>I think you mean desiderat<b>um</b>, not desiderat<b>a</b>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>presumably the latter desiderata is the real goal , not pretty looking documents.get off my lawn.I think you mean desideratum , not desiderata .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>presumably the latter desiderata is the real goal, not pretty looking documents.get off my lawn.I think you mean desideratum, not desiderata.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716117</id>
	<title>The new BLINK</title>
	<author>goombah99</author>
	<datestamp>1247756400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the concepts behind CSS is to abstract content from how it is presented.  But one of the objectives behind this is to make presentations more self consistent.  You change one css rule and all the logical kinds of content it applies to all change.  this facilitiates accessibility and comprehension of a documents logical layout by the reader.</p><p>presumably the latter desiderata is the real goal, not pretty looking documents.</p><p>given that,  there is a large benefit to users if web pages look a lot alike.  it puts less burden on the end user to decipher the page and access it's content if qualtiatively different authors web pages dont differ from each other in too many ways.</p><p>I know some css nerds will tell me if I feel that way I should use my own css.  first off I don't have time for that.  second, it's likely if I mess with CSS on an overly tuned web page i;ll make it less readable not more.</p><p>SO the problem with this is not that it's a perfectly awful idea but that like blink, if you include this as an easy to use feature it will get abused to death and in aggregate crapify the web.</p><p>get off my lawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the concepts behind CSS is to abstract content from how it is presented .
But one of the objectives behind this is to make presentations more self consistent .
You change one css rule and all the logical kinds of content it applies to all change .
this facilitiates accessibility and comprehension of a documents logical layout by the reader.presumably the latter desiderata is the real goal , not pretty looking documents.given that , there is a large benefit to users if web pages look a lot alike .
it puts less burden on the end user to decipher the page and access it 's content if qualtiatively different authors web pages dont differ from each other in too many ways.I know some css nerds will tell me if I feel that way I should use my own css .
first off I do n't have time for that .
second , it 's likely if I mess with CSS on an overly tuned web page i ; ll make it less readable not more.SO the problem with this is not that it 's a perfectly awful idea but that like blink , if you include this as an easy to use feature it will get abused to death and in aggregate crapify the web.get off my lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the concepts behind CSS is to abstract content from how it is presented.
But one of the objectives behind this is to make presentations more self consistent.
You change one css rule and all the logical kinds of content it applies to all change.
this facilitiates accessibility and comprehension of a documents logical layout by the reader.presumably the latter desiderata is the real goal, not pretty looking documents.given that,  there is a large benefit to users if web pages look a lot alike.
it puts less burden on the end user to decipher the page and access it's content if qualtiatively different authors web pages dont differ from each other in too many ways.I know some css nerds will tell me if I feel that way I should use my own css.
first off I don't have time for that.
second, it's likely if I mess with CSS on an overly tuned web page i;ll make it less readable not more.SO the problem with this is not that it's a perfectly awful idea but that like blink, if you include this as an easy to use feature it will get abused to death and in aggregate crapify the web.get off my lawn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715939</id>
	<title>IE doesn't support font-face</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247755740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was under the impression that no version of IE supported @font-face?</p><p>http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/07/font-face-typekit-and-font-licensing-the-state-of-web-type.ars</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression that no version of IE supported @ font-face ? http : //arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/07/font-face-typekit-and-font-licensing-the-state-of-web-type.ars</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression that no version of IE supported @font-face?http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/07/font-face-typekit-and-font-licensing-the-state-of-web-type.ars</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716593</id>
	<title>Re:IE doesn't support font-face</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1247758620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that is pretty much a deal breaker for any real world web designer.
</p><p>
Great idea, though. I hope MS implements it in future versions of IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that is pretty much a deal breaker for any real world web designer .
Great idea , though .
I hope MS implements it in future versions of IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that is pretty much a deal breaker for any real world web designer.
Great idea, though.
I hope MS implements it in future versions of IE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716261</id>
	<title>Re:Oh Lord!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247757120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox has a checkbox in Tools -&gt; Options -&gt; Content -&gt; Fonts and Colors -&gt; Advanced to disable this, if you so desire.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox has a checkbox in Tools - &gt; Options - &gt; Content - &gt; Fonts and Colors - &gt; Advanced to disable this , if you so desire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox has a checkbox in Tools -&gt; Options -&gt; Content -&gt; Fonts and Colors -&gt; Advanced to disable this, if you so desire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003</id>
	<title>Courier, Arial, Times New Roman</title>
	<author>BenEnglishAtHome</author>
	<datestamp>1247755980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do we need any more?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we need any more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we need any more?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718323</id>
	<title>Re:Oh Lord!</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1247764980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I can't tell how bad it looks... the page crashes my Firefox 3.5 nearly immediately.  The first load showed some pretty fancy fonts, but subsequent loads (via crash session recovery) looks rather different....just before the window closes abruptly.</p><blockquote><div><p>$ firefox<br>firefox: cairo-ft-font.c:554: \_cairo\_ft\_unscaled\_font\_lock\_face: Assertion `!unscaled-&gt;from\_face' Failed.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/lib64/firefox-3.5/run-mozilla.sh: line 131: 27340 Aborting "$prog" ${1+"$@"}</p></div></blockquote><p>I hate submitting bug reports though... there are always jackasses who reject my reports because I don't do all the work for them.  Running under Windows in a vbox VM was just fine though.  Probably some 64 bit library thing under Fedora... anyone else got that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I ca n't tell how bad it looks... the page crashes my Firefox 3.5 nearly immediately .
The first load showed some pretty fancy fonts , but subsequent loads ( via crash session recovery ) looks rather different....just before the window closes abruptly. $ firefoxfirefox : cairo-ft-font.c : 554 : \ _cairo \ _ft \ _unscaled \ _font \ _lock \ _face : Assertion ` ! unscaled- &gt; from \ _face ' Failed .
/usr/lib64/firefox-3.5/run-mozilla.sh : line 131 : 27340 Aborting " $ prog " $ { 1 + " $ @ " } I hate submitting bug reports though... there are always jackasses who reject my reports because I do n't do all the work for them .
Running under Windows in a vbox VM was just fine though .
Probably some 64 bit library thing under Fedora... anyone else got that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I can't tell how bad it looks... the page crashes my Firefox 3.5 nearly immediately.
The first load showed some pretty fancy fonts, but subsequent loads (via crash session recovery) looks rather different....just before the window closes abruptly.$ firefoxfirefox: cairo-ft-font.c:554: \_cairo\_ft\_unscaled\_font\_lock\_face: Assertion `!unscaled-&gt;from\_face' Failed.
/usr/lib64/firefox-3.5/run-mozilla.sh: line 131: 27340 Aborting "$prog" ${1+"$@"}I hate submitting bug reports though... there are always jackasses who reject my reports because I don't do all the work for them.
Running under Windows in a vbox VM was just fine though.
Probably some 64 bit library thing under Fedora... anyone else got that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719957</id>
	<title>Re:Cue new security vulnerabilities in...3..2..1..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247770860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cliffs: get off my lawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cliffs : get off my lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cliffs: get off my lawn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716023</id>
	<title>Self-downloading fonts...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247756040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>... how long before some hack turns this into an exploit for new self-installing viruses?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... how long before some hack turns this into an exploit for new self-installing viruses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... how long before some hack turns this into an exploit for new self-installing viruses?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717187</id>
	<title>Re:Fonts</title>
	<author>ICLKennyG</author>
	<datestamp>1247760720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fonts are specifically exempt from copyright.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fonts are specifically exempt from copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fonts are specifically exempt from copyright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716773</id>
	<title>bug report - security vulnerability (critical)</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1247759160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>nature of exploit:<br> <br>

attacker can cause severe psychological damage to user by gaining access to repressed childhood memories from GeoCities in the 90's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>nature of exploit : attacker can cause severe psychological damage to user by gaining access to repressed childhood memories from GeoCities in the 90 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nature of exploit: 

attacker can cause severe psychological damage to user by gaining access to repressed childhood memories from GeoCities in the 90's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716477</id>
	<title>Re:Courier, Arial, Times New Roman</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1247758140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While we Mac users say same thing for years, we ended up paying to Arial and friends.</p><p>How? Apple ended up licensing the knock off version family from MS. Each Leopard install/upgrade includes them now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While we Mac users say same thing for years , we ended up paying to Arial and friends.How ?
Apple ended up licensing the knock off version family from MS. Each Leopard install/upgrade includes them now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While we Mac users say same thing for years, we ended up paying to Arial and friends.How?
Apple ended up licensing the knock off version family from MS. Each Leopard install/upgrade includes them now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28751169</id>
	<title>Re:Licensing nightmare?</title>
	<author>nidarus</author>
	<datestamp>1248006960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you didn't download an image, you download a program that generates images.</p><p>I know that calling a font a "program" is a somewhat ridiculous, but bear with me for a second. A user downloads a font, and he can't distribute that font to anyone else, fine. But the user can still <em>use</em> the font, without paying any licensing fee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you did n't download an image , you download a program that generates images.I know that calling a font a " program " is a somewhat ridiculous , but bear with me for a second .
A user downloads a font , and he ca n't distribute that font to anyone else , fine .
But the user can still use the font , without paying any licensing fee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you didn't download an image, you download a program that generates images.I know that calling a font a "program" is a somewhat ridiculous, but bear with me for a second.
A user downloads a font, and he can't distribute that font to anyone else, fine.
But the user can still use the font, without paying any licensing fee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724721</id>
	<title>Re:Oh Lord!</title>
	<author>Macgrrl</author>
	<datestamp>1247749260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will be the desktop publishing revolution (meets geocities) all over again. But do you know what, there may have been a bunch of crap, but from out of that arose conventions and understanding that often result in really great work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will be the desktop publishing revolution ( meets geocities ) all over again .
But do you know what , there may have been a bunch of crap , but from out of that arose conventions and understanding that often result in really great work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will be the desktop publishing revolution (meets geocities) all over again.
But do you know what, there may have been a bunch of crap, but from out of that arose conventions and understanding that often result in really great work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28751259</id>
	<title>Re:quality is quality, however...</title>
	<author>nidarus</author>
	<datestamp>1248007860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the USA, the DESIGN of a font is something you cannot copyright</p></div><p>I'd like to add that even in countries where you <em>can</em> copyright font designs, it's still very hard to prove such copyright violations. Fonts, or, at least, readable modern fonts, are pretty similar to each other, by their very nature. As in your example, you can take Arial, make a couple of trivial modifications and voila, you have Helvetica<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>In Israel, where I live, that basic difficulty allowed what amounts to wholesale plagiarism of fonts by certain local foundries. A talented designer creates a nice font, it becomes famous, and, lo and behold - a large local type foundry releases a very close copy, and sells it as part of its large "bundles". The only real force that counters this is the small size of the local design community, and their basic human decency.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the USA , the DESIGN of a font is something you can not copyrightI 'd like to add that even in countries where you can copyright font designs , it 's still very hard to prove such copyright violations .
Fonts , or , at least , readable modern fonts , are pretty similar to each other , by their very nature .
As in your example , you can take Arial , make a couple of trivial modifications and voila , you have Helvetica : ) In Israel , where I live , that basic difficulty allowed what amounts to wholesale plagiarism of fonts by certain local foundries .
A talented designer creates a nice font , it becomes famous , and , lo and behold - a large local type foundry releases a very close copy , and sells it as part of its large " bundles " .
The only real force that counters this is the small size of the local design community , and their basic human decency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the USA, the DESIGN of a font is something you cannot copyrightI'd like to add that even in countries where you can copyright font designs, it's still very hard to prove such copyright violations.
Fonts, or, at least, readable modern fonts, are pretty similar to each other, by their very nature.
As in your example, you can take Arial, make a couple of trivial modifications and voila, you have Helvetica :)In Israel, where I live, that basic difficulty allowed what amounts to wholesale plagiarism of fonts by certain local foundries.
A talented designer creates a nice font, it becomes famous, and, lo and behold - a large local type foundry releases a very close copy, and sells it as part of its large "bundles".
The only real force that counters this is the small size of the local design community, and their basic human decency.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716473</id>
	<title>Re:Fonts</title>
	<author>El Tonerino</author>
	<datestamp>1247758140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> RE: Images<br>
<br>
Licensing? Nightmare.<br>
Bandwidth? Eek.<br>
Security? Whoa!<br>
Compatibility? Doesn't downgrade nicely (that page looks horrible in a "stable" browser of today and is almost unreadable)<br>
Gains? Geocities-like webpages that use every image they can just for the sake of it. Seven million websites with pictures of cats. And only the sensible browsers will come with options to turn the damn thing off (and thus look even worse).<br>
<br>
Stupid idea, stupid execution (having to DOWNLOAD every image mentioned on a page?)</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I think when you have to cite Geocities as an example, we aren't talking about web design...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>RE : Images Licensing ?
Nightmare . Bandwidth ?
Eek . Security ?
Whoa ! Compatibility ?
Does n't downgrade nicely ( that page looks horrible in a " stable " browser of today and is almost unreadable ) Gains ?
Geocities-like webpages that use every image they can just for the sake of it .
Seven million websites with pictures of cats .
And only the sensible browsers will come with options to turn the damn thing off ( and thus look even worse ) .
Stupid idea , stupid execution ( having to DOWNLOAD every image mentioned on a page ?
) I think when you have to cite Geocities as an example , we are n't talking about web design.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> RE: Images

Licensing?
Nightmare.
Bandwidth?
Eek.
Security?
Whoa!
Compatibility?
Doesn't downgrade nicely (that page looks horrible in a "stable" browser of today and is almost unreadable)
Gains?
Geocities-like webpages that use every image they can just for the sake of it.
Seven million websites with pictures of cats.
And only the sensible browsers will come with options to turn the damn thing off (and thus look even worse).
Stupid idea, stupid execution (having to DOWNLOAD every image mentioned on a page?
)

I think when you have to cite Geocities as an example, we aren't talking about web design...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716569</id>
	<title>Re:Ancientech?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1247758560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2001? Even earlier. Both Netscape 4 and IE 4 had their own technologies to embed fonts. IE was directly downloading ttf files and Netscape had a more cross platform solution.</p><p>Result? Nobody cared. Even "best viewed in" fanatics didn't use the technologies offered.</p><p>It is more like Symbian OS or OS X or even Windows. You can actually change the UI font but nobody cares enough. Price is another matter, a good font is designed in years by a single person. Font is way more complex form of art than anyone can imagine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2001 ?
Even earlier .
Both Netscape 4 and IE 4 had their own technologies to embed fonts .
IE was directly downloading ttf files and Netscape had a more cross platform solution.Result ?
Nobody cared .
Even " best viewed in " fanatics did n't use the technologies offered.It is more like Symbian OS or OS X or even Windows .
You can actually change the UI font but nobody cares enough .
Price is another matter , a good font is designed in years by a single person .
Font is way more complex form of art than anyone can imagine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2001?
Even earlier.
Both Netscape 4 and IE 4 had their own technologies to embed fonts.
IE was directly downloading ttf files and Netscape had a more cross platform solution.Result?
Nobody cared.
Even "best viewed in" fanatics didn't use the technologies offered.It is more like Symbian OS or OS X or even Windows.
You can actually change the UI font but nobody cares enough.
Price is another matter, a good font is designed in years by a single person.
Font is way more complex form of art than anyone can imagine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717623</id>
	<title>Re:Oh Lord!</title>
	<author>jbarr</author>
	<datestamp>1247762520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I can easily see this getting abused.</p></div></blockquote><p>The alternative being...?</p><p>Web designers demand the ability to be creative, and Web viewers demand consistency and readability. Someone in the mix is going to have to compromise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can easily see this getting abused.The alternative being... ? Web designers demand the ability to be creative , and Web viewers demand consistency and readability .
Someone in the mix is going to have to compromise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can easily see this getting abused.The alternative being...?Web designers demand the ability to be creative, and Web viewers demand consistency and readability.
Someone in the mix is going to have to compromise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716237</id>
	<title>Re:Oh Lord!</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1247756940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was an example and as history tells us (such as the implementation of jpeg/gif) we already know things like this can be abused. What you're missing is that people essentially don't want their web pages to look shitty. They just didn't know it back then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was an example and as history tells us ( such as the implementation of jpeg/gif ) we already know things like this can be abused .
What you 're missing is that people essentially do n't want their web pages to look shitty .
They just did n't know it back then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was an example and as history tells us (such as the implementation of jpeg/gif) we already know things like this can be abused.
What you're missing is that people essentially don't want their web pages to look shitty.
They just didn't know it back then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716635</id>
	<title>Re:Oh Lord!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247758800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's okay, Safari crashed for me...  Twice.  I got to see a couple of the fonts before it went, though.  And yeah, they were ugly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's okay , Safari crashed for me... Twice. I got to see a couple of the fonts before it went , though .
And yeah , they were ugly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's okay, Safari crashed for me...  Twice.  I got to see a couple of the fonts before it went, though.
And yeah, they were ugly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718779</id>
	<title>Re:No way...</title>
	<author>TheCyberShadow</author>
	<datestamp>1247766480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Opera supports user style sheets, which allow you to do exactly this (and more). You can even have per-site style sheets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera supports user style sheets , which allow you to do exactly this ( and more ) .
You can even have per-site style sheets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera supports user style sheets, which allow you to do exactly this (and more).
You can even have per-site style sheets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716487</id>
	<title>Re:Courier, Arial, Times New Roman</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1247758200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Arial is a poor knockoff of Helvetica.  Just say no to Microsoft's shitty "me too" garbage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Arial is a poor knockoff of Helvetica .
Just say no to Microsoft 's shitty " me too " garbage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arial is a poor knockoff of Helvetica.
Just say no to Microsoft's shitty "me too" garbage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716141</id>
	<title>Uh oh.</title>
	<author>DontBlameCanada</author>
	<datestamp>1247756580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll be watching<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ for a headline indicating someone found a buffer overrun and managed to turn this into yet another security hole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll be watching ./ for a headline indicating someone found a buffer overrun and managed to turn this into yet another security hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll be watching ./ for a headline indicating someone found a buffer overrun and managed to turn this into yet another security hole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716247</id>
	<title>Web pages...</title>
	<author>Bootarn</author>
	<datestamp>1247757000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...are just a way of sharing information. I think the &lt;video&gt; tag is a great idea, since it moves towards a standardised way to view videos on a page. Even though it's video, it's still information.</p><p>
This, however, is not a clever way of "enhancing" web pages. We have the information we need, and we're satisfied. No need to put bells and whistles on it. If it were up to me (which it isn't), there would be no such thing as "web design". Web pages are not a fashion show, they're just means of sharing, displaying and publishing information. Let's keep it that way.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...are just a way of sharing information .
I think the tag is a great idea , since it moves towards a standardised way to view videos on a page .
Even though it 's video , it 's still information .
This , however , is not a clever way of " enhancing " web pages .
We have the information we need , and we 're satisfied .
No need to put bells and whistles on it .
If it were up to me ( which it is n't ) , there would be no such thing as " web design " .
Web pages are not a fashion show , they 're just means of sharing , displaying and publishing information .
Let 's keep it that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...are just a way of sharing information.
I think the  tag is a great idea, since it moves towards a standardised way to view videos on a page.
Even though it's video, it's still information.
This, however, is not a clever way of "enhancing" web pages.
We have the information we need, and we're satisfied.
No need to put bells and whistles on it.
If it were up to me (which it isn't), there would be no such thing as "web design".
Web pages are not a fashion show, they're just means of sharing, displaying and publishing information.
Let's keep it that way.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28735321</id>
	<title>Re:At least you'll have options</title>
	<author>Directrix1</author>
	<datestamp>1247826900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder why Ctrl+F doesn't search alt text.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why Ctrl + F does n't search alt text .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why Ctrl+F doesn't search alt text.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724233</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but we need semantic fonts</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1247745720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The web page in the example really has no place specifying the exact font which should be used, as people with visual impairments, people with low-res portable devices, or people whose native language isn't based on a latin script, might have extreme difficulty reading it.</p></div><p>That's ridiculous.  You may as well say that sites shouldn't specify colors, because people who are color-blind might not be able to read it.  We shouldn't cripple content served to typical people for the benefit of tiny minorities.  We should just make sure that those minorities can adapt their browser to get things to work for them.

</p><p>Someone who doesn't like web fonts can disable them.  Not so easy if the fonts are hardcoded into bitmap images or Flash, which is how non-standard fonts are used today.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The web page in the example really has no place specifying the exact font which should be used , as people with visual impairments , people with low-res portable devices , or people whose native language is n't based on a latin script , might have extreme difficulty reading it.That 's ridiculous .
You may as well say that sites should n't specify colors , because people who are color-blind might not be able to read it .
We should n't cripple content served to typical people for the benefit of tiny minorities .
We should just make sure that those minorities can adapt their browser to get things to work for them .
Someone who does n't like web fonts can disable them .
Not so easy if the fonts are hardcoded into bitmap images or Flash , which is how non-standard fonts are used today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web page in the example really has no place specifying the exact font which should be used, as people with visual impairments, people with low-res portable devices, or people whose native language isn't based on a latin script, might have extreme difficulty reading it.That's ridiculous.
You may as well say that sites shouldn't specify colors, because people who are color-blind might not be able to read it.
We shouldn't cripple content served to typical people for the benefit of tiny minorities.
We should just make sure that those minorities can adapt their browser to get things to work for them.
Someone who doesn't like web fonts can disable them.
Not so easy if the fonts are hardcoded into bitmap images or Flash, which is how non-standard fonts are used today.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717451</id>
	<title>Re:Courier, Arial, Times New Roman</title>
	<author>odflyg</author>
	<datestamp>1247761800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering that I've got none of those fonts installed on my computer, I'd say "yes"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering that I 've got none of those fonts installed on my computer , I 'd say " yes " ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering that I've got none of those fonts installed on my computer, I'd say "yes" ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718511</id>
	<title>Reality check</title>
	<author>scarlac</author>
	<datestamp>1247765520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the Slashdot post:<br>&gt; (...) latest versions of Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and Opera - recognize a CSS rule known as @font-face<br><br>From the linked page viewed in IE7:<br>&gt; "This demo appears as intended only in Firefox 3.5"<br><br>The demo page shows the issue so clearly: You forgot IE. IE8 still doesn't have font-face support for TTF which is possibly the only format people will like to use.<br><br>I work with CSS most of my day but I doubt that I will have the pleasure of setting up sites with custom fonts for several years to come with the release cycles and popularity of IE as we have it today. For now we can be happy that IE8 can actually pass the acid2 test.<br><br>Regards<br>Seph</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the Slashdot post : &gt; ( ... ) latest versions of Internet Explorer , Firefox , Safari , Chrome , and Opera - recognize a CSS rule known as @ font-faceFrom the linked page viewed in IE7 : &gt; " This demo appears as intended only in Firefox 3.5 " The demo page shows the issue so clearly : You forgot IE .
IE8 still does n't have font-face support for TTF which is possibly the only format people will like to use.I work with CSS most of my day but I doubt that I will have the pleasure of setting up sites with custom fonts for several years to come with the release cycles and popularity of IE as we have it today .
For now we can be happy that IE8 can actually pass the acid2 test.RegardsSeph</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the Slashdot post:&gt; (...) latest versions of Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and Opera - recognize a CSS rule known as @font-faceFrom the linked page viewed in IE7:&gt; "This demo appears as intended only in Firefox 3.5"The demo page shows the issue so clearly: You forgot IE.
IE8 still doesn't have font-face support for TTF which is possibly the only format people will like to use.I work with CSS most of my day but I doubt that I will have the pleasure of setting up sites with custom fonts for several years to come with the release cycles and popularity of IE as we have it today.
For now we can be happy that IE8 can actually pass the acid2 test.RegardsSeph</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724015</id>
	<title>Re:Licensing nightmare?</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1247744700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is font licensing any different from image licensing?</p></div><p>Because Microsoft refuses to implement raw TTF support, for the sake of font foundries.  If Microsoft didn't care, there would be no discussion: we'd just all use whatever preexisting format was most convenient.  But now everyone has to actually care what the font authors think, because Microsoft says so.  At least if you hope to get a single interoperable format, and not have to serve EOT+TTF forever.

</p><p>FWIW, some Microsoft employees have said they think images should also have had some sort of impediments to casual unauthorized reuse, but it's obviously too late for that.  You can read all the gory details if you go back through the <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/" title="w3.org">www-font</a> [w3.org] archives.  There's been lengthy but scattered discussion on <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/" title="w3.org">www-style</a> [w3.org] too, including a gigantic thread just a month or so ago that moved to www-font when fantasai complained that it was off-topic.

</p><p>I followed all the discussion for a while, but it's clear at this point that no one is going to agree on a format in the immediate future.  The non-Microsoft browser vendors in the discussion (mainly Mozilla and Opera) seem content to take a wait-and-see approach.  Meanwhile, none of the browser vendors have given a completely unambiguous statement of their requirements, so we don't know if there's even any common ground for a shared format even in principle.  There seems to be the potential for agreement on a format that's obfuscated enough not to work out-of-the-box if you dump it on your desktop, plus served with same-origin restrictions by default.  But the details have to be worked out, and nobody seems to be doing that.

</p><p>So I don't foresee anything actually happening unless a rep from each vendor is locked in a room and they aren't let out until they shove a completed specification with all their signatures on it under the door.  For now everyone will just serve two font formats.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is font licensing any different from image licensing ? Because Microsoft refuses to implement raw TTF support , for the sake of font foundries .
If Microsoft did n't care , there would be no discussion : we 'd just all use whatever preexisting format was most convenient .
But now everyone has to actually care what the font authors think , because Microsoft says so .
At least if you hope to get a single interoperable format , and not have to serve EOT + TTF forever .
FWIW , some Microsoft employees have said they think images should also have had some sort of impediments to casual unauthorized reuse , but it 's obviously too late for that .
You can read all the gory details if you go back through the www-font [ w3.org ] archives .
There 's been lengthy but scattered discussion on www-style [ w3.org ] too , including a gigantic thread just a month or so ago that moved to www-font when fantasai complained that it was off-topic .
I followed all the discussion for a while , but it 's clear at this point that no one is going to agree on a format in the immediate future .
The non-Microsoft browser vendors in the discussion ( mainly Mozilla and Opera ) seem content to take a wait-and-see approach .
Meanwhile , none of the browser vendors have given a completely unambiguous statement of their requirements , so we do n't know if there 's even any common ground for a shared format even in principle .
There seems to be the potential for agreement on a format that 's obfuscated enough not to work out-of-the-box if you dump it on your desktop , plus served with same-origin restrictions by default .
But the details have to be worked out , and nobody seems to be doing that .
So I do n't foresee anything actually happening unless a rep from each vendor is locked in a room and they are n't let out until they shove a completed specification with all their signatures on it under the door .
For now everyone will just serve two font formats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is font licensing any different from image licensing?Because Microsoft refuses to implement raw TTF support, for the sake of font foundries.
If Microsoft didn't care, there would be no discussion: we'd just all use whatever preexisting format was most convenient.
But now everyone has to actually care what the font authors think, because Microsoft says so.
At least if you hope to get a single interoperable format, and not have to serve EOT+TTF forever.
FWIW, some Microsoft employees have said they think images should also have had some sort of impediments to casual unauthorized reuse, but it's obviously too late for that.
You can read all the gory details if you go back through the www-font [w3.org] archives.
There's been lengthy but scattered discussion on www-style [w3.org] too, including a gigantic thread just a month or so ago that moved to www-font when fantasai complained that it was off-topic.
I followed all the discussion for a while, but it's clear at this point that no one is going to agree on a format in the immediate future.
The non-Microsoft browser vendors in the discussion (mainly Mozilla and Opera) seem content to take a wait-and-see approach.
Meanwhile, none of the browser vendors have given a completely unambiguous statement of their requirements, so we don't know if there's even any common ground for a shared format even in principle.
There seems to be the potential for agreement on a format that's obfuscated enough not to work out-of-the-box if you dump it on your desktop, plus served with same-origin restrictions by default.
But the details have to be worked out, and nobody seems to be doing that.
So I don't foresee anything actually happening unless a rep from each vendor is locked in a room and they aren't let out until they shove a completed specification with all their signatures on it under the door.
For now everyone will just serve two font formats.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718299</id>
	<title>Re:Fonts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247764920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>suppose i create a font where 0x61 (a) looked like 'z'.  it would<br>be pretty easy to spam search engines with this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>suppose i create a font where 0x61 ( a ) looked like 'z' .
it wouldbe pretty easy to spam search engines with this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suppose i create a font where 0x61 (a) looked like 'z'.
it wouldbe pretty easy to spam search engines with this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716669</id>
	<title>I would find it very useful</title>
	<author>FreeUser</author>
	<datestamp>1247758860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one would find it very useful, for embedding things like sexagesimal numerals, e.g <a href="http://autonomyseries.com/autonomy-canon/community-standard-sexagesimal/" title="autonomyseries.com">http://autonomyseries.com/autonomy-canon/community-standard-sexagesimal/</a> [autonomyseries.com] right now uses an aging wordpress plugin to display sexagesimal.ttf glyphs.  Being able to embed "@font=sexagesimal.ttf" (or whatever the syntax is) would be very handy, but not if we're forced to convert our ttfs to Microsoft's worthless alternative format.</p><p>As for Microsoft's pathetic excuse that someone, somewhere might violate a copyright at some point in time my response is: so what?  Just because someone, somewhere might violate someone's asinine copyright on a particular implementation of the alphabet's 26 letters, doesn't mean monopolists like Microsoft have any business throwing roadblocks in the way of the rest of us, who design our own fonts and want to be able to display and distribute them simply, seamlessly, and painlessly in standard, open formats.  This isn't about protecting copyrights on fonts, its about Microsoft making sure IE isn't quite compatible with every other browser, and making sure we have to use their tools if we want anything to work on their dominant platform (and, if history is anything to judge by, eventually buy a license to do so).  It's about muscling in on web standards to the detriment of everyone else, and I for one am fed up with it. I'm delighted Firefox, Opera, and Apple are embracing this.  Hopefully they'll do the same with ogg-vorbis and other open standards, so we can have a complete web stack (including fonts and multimedia) that is unencumbered by American software patents, Microsoft (or anyone else's) proprietaryisms, sometimes-expensive licensing of third party products, and proprietary formats that only run on one or two widespread platforms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one would find it very useful , for embedding things like sexagesimal numerals , e.g http : //autonomyseries.com/autonomy-canon/community-standard-sexagesimal/ [ autonomyseries.com ] right now uses an aging wordpress plugin to display sexagesimal.ttf glyphs .
Being able to embed " @ font = sexagesimal.ttf " ( or whatever the syntax is ) would be very handy , but not if we 're forced to convert our ttfs to Microsoft 's worthless alternative format.As for Microsoft 's pathetic excuse that someone , somewhere might violate a copyright at some point in time my response is : so what ?
Just because someone , somewhere might violate someone 's asinine copyright on a particular implementation of the alphabet 's 26 letters , does n't mean monopolists like Microsoft have any business throwing roadblocks in the way of the rest of us , who design our own fonts and want to be able to display and distribute them simply , seamlessly , and painlessly in standard , open formats .
This is n't about protecting copyrights on fonts , its about Microsoft making sure IE is n't quite compatible with every other browser , and making sure we have to use their tools if we want anything to work on their dominant platform ( and , if history is anything to judge by , eventually buy a license to do so ) .
It 's about muscling in on web standards to the detriment of everyone else , and I for one am fed up with it .
I 'm delighted Firefox , Opera , and Apple are embracing this .
Hopefully they 'll do the same with ogg-vorbis and other open standards , so we can have a complete web stack ( including fonts and multimedia ) that is unencumbered by American software patents , Microsoft ( or anyone else 's ) proprietaryisms , sometimes-expensive licensing of third party products , and proprietary formats that only run on one or two widespread platforms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one would find it very useful, for embedding things like sexagesimal numerals, e.g http://autonomyseries.com/autonomy-canon/community-standard-sexagesimal/ [autonomyseries.com] right now uses an aging wordpress plugin to display sexagesimal.ttf glyphs.
Being able to embed "@font=sexagesimal.ttf" (or whatever the syntax is) would be very handy, but not if we're forced to convert our ttfs to Microsoft's worthless alternative format.As for Microsoft's pathetic excuse that someone, somewhere might violate a copyright at some point in time my response is: so what?
Just because someone, somewhere might violate someone's asinine copyright on a particular implementation of the alphabet's 26 letters, doesn't mean monopolists like Microsoft have any business throwing roadblocks in the way of the rest of us, who design our own fonts and want to be able to display and distribute them simply, seamlessly, and painlessly in standard, open formats.
This isn't about protecting copyrights on fonts, its about Microsoft making sure IE isn't quite compatible with every other browser, and making sure we have to use their tools if we want anything to work on their dominant platform (and, if history is anything to judge by, eventually buy a license to do so).
It's about muscling in on web standards to the detriment of everyone else, and I for one am fed up with it.
I'm delighted Firefox, Opera, and Apple are embracing this.
Hopefully they'll do the same with ogg-vorbis and other open standards, so we can have a complete web stack (including fonts and multimedia) that is unencumbered by American software patents, Microsoft (or anyone else's) proprietaryisms, sometimes-expensive licensing of third party products, and proprietary formats that only run on one or two widespread platforms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716189</id>
	<title>Neat DRM...</title>
	<author>GeekDork</author>
	<datestamp>1247756700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like Type3 fonts in Postscript. Just make a custom font with the glyphs permutated a bit, transform the text accordingly, and hey presto, copy is worthless. Or how about having complete paaragraphs or pages in a single glyph?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like Type3 fonts in Postscript .
Just make a custom font with the glyphs permutated a bit , transform the text accordingly , and hey presto , copy is worthless .
Or how about having complete paaragraphs or pages in a single glyph ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like Type3 fonts in Postscript.
Just make a custom font with the glyphs permutated a bit, transform the text accordingly, and hey presto, copy is worthless.
Or how about having complete paaragraphs or pages in a single glyph?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717489</id>
	<title>Re:Fonts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247761980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the heck is wrong with your web browser? For me, I get the author's fonts in Safari 4. If I fire up Firefox 3.0.11, I get the plain vanilla fonts that 90\% of all web pages I view use.</p><p>How, exactly, does that look "terrible?" You're being a luddite. Grow up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the heck is wrong with your web browser ?
For me , I get the author 's fonts in Safari 4 .
If I fire up Firefox 3.0.11 , I get the plain vanilla fonts that 90 \ % of all web pages I view use.How , exactly , does that look " terrible ?
" You 're being a luddite .
Grow up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the heck is wrong with your web browser?
For me, I get the author's fonts in Safari 4.
If I fire up Firefox 3.0.11, I get the plain vanilla fonts that 90\% of all web pages I view use.How, exactly, does that look "terrible?
" You're being a luddite.
Grow up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719515</id>
	<title>Re:Web developers can now easily embed...</title>
	<author>jalefkowit</author>
	<datestamp>1247769240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The average "Web developer" knows nothing about type, and thinks <b>"kearning"</b> is something you do to corn on the cob.</p></div></blockquote><p>Pro Tip: if you're going to mock people for not understanding a subject, at least be sure to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerning" title="wikipedia.org">spell the name of that subject correctly</a> [wikipedia.org] when you do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The average " Web developer " knows nothing about type , and thinks " kearning " is something you do to corn on the cob.Pro Tip : if you 're going to mock people for not understanding a subject , at least be sure to spell the name of that subject correctly [ wikipedia.org ] when you do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The average "Web developer" knows nothing about type, and thinks "kearning" is something you do to corn on the cob.Pro Tip: if you're going to mock people for not understanding a subject, at least be sure to spell the name of that subject correctly [wikipedia.org] when you do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717225</id>
	<title>No way...</title>
	<author>spottedkangaroo</author>
	<datestamp>1247760840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of firefox most important features, which keeps me completely locked in because the competition doesn't have it:  the ability to set fonts I like and forbit sites from changing it.  My entire web experience is all in one font and it's all big enough to read.  Opera and Chrome are completely ruled out for not having this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of firefox most important features , which keeps me completely locked in because the competition does n't have it : the ability to set fonts I like and forbit sites from changing it .
My entire web experience is all in one font and it 's all big enough to read .
Opera and Chrome are completely ruled out for not having this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of firefox most important features, which keeps me completely locked in because the competition doesn't have it:  the ability to set fonts I like and forbit sites from changing it.
My entire web experience is all in one font and it's all big enough to read.
Opera and Chrome are completely ruled out for not having this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719079</id>
	<title>Re:Web pages...</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1247767680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This, however, is not a clever way of "enhancing" web pages. We have the information we need, and we're satisfied. No need to put bells and whistles on it. If it were up to me (which it isn't), there would be no such thing as "web design". Web pages are not a fashion show, they're just means of sharing, displaying and publishing information.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Yeah, but a lot of glyphs that are useful for sharing certain types of information aren't in the most common fonts; being able to embed a font that you know supports well glyphs you need to communicate the information best to the audience you are targeting is a good thing for many specialized applications.</p><p>But, sure, it'll be abused a lot by people to use annoying fonts badly. Such is the way of the web.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This , however , is not a clever way of " enhancing " web pages .
We have the information we need , and we 're satisfied .
No need to put bells and whistles on it .
If it were up to me ( which it is n't ) , there would be no such thing as " web design " .
Web pages are not a fashion show , they 're just means of sharing , displaying and publishing information .
Yeah , but a lot of glyphs that are useful for sharing certain types of information are n't in the most common fonts ; being able to embed a font that you know supports well glyphs you need to communicate the information best to the audience you are targeting is a good thing for many specialized applications.But , sure , it 'll be abused a lot by people to use annoying fonts badly .
Such is the way of the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This, however, is not a clever way of "enhancing" web pages.
We have the information we need, and we're satisfied.
No need to put bells and whistles on it.
If it were up to me (which it isn't), there would be no such thing as "web design".
Web pages are not a fashion show, they're just means of sharing, displaying and publishing information.
Yeah, but a lot of glyphs that are useful for sharing certain types of information aren't in the most common fonts; being able to embed a font that you know supports well glyphs you need to communicate the information best to the audience you are targeting is a good thing for many specialized applications.But, sure, it'll be abused a lot by people to use annoying fonts badly.
Such is the way of the web.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28728063</id>
	<title>Useful for functional fonts</title>
	<author>ambanmba</author>
	<datestamp>1247836980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will be very useful for functional fonts such as Harvey Balls or Dice - up until now they needed to be drawn. By embedding a font you can start to use the fonts in online applications such as games or dashboards, etc.<p>

Here are a couple of proof-of-concepts... (obviously you need a compliant browser to view this)</p><p>

<a href="http://www.ambor.com/hb/webdice.html" title="ambor.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ambor.com/hb/webdice.html</a> [ambor.com] </p><p>
<a href="http://www.ambor.com/hb/webharveyballs.html" title="ambor.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ambor.com/hb/webharveyballs.html</a> [ambor.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be very useful for functional fonts such as Harvey Balls or Dice - up until now they needed to be drawn .
By embedding a font you can start to use the fonts in online applications such as games or dashboards , etc .
Here are a couple of proof-of-concepts... ( obviously you need a compliant browser to view this ) http : //www.ambor.com/hb/webdice.html [ ambor.com ] http : //www.ambor.com/hb/webharveyballs.html [ ambor.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will be very useful for functional fonts such as Harvey Balls or Dice - up until now they needed to be drawn.
By embedding a font you can start to use the fonts in online applications such as games or dashboards, etc.
Here are a couple of proof-of-concepts... (obviously you need a compliant browser to view this)

http://www.ambor.com/hb/webdice.html [ambor.com] 
http://www.ambor.com/hb/webharveyballs.html [ambor.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716583</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on a sec...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247758620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, how do you think those HTML pages, CSS sheets, JS files, images, and plugin files (flash,java,etc) work?</p><p>Download -&gt; run trough interpreter -&gt; render output</p><p>It depends on the interpreter. And I say that one is the same for any font, and therefore you could also use maybe an obscure Unicode character to wreak havoc in the interpreter. No matter what font it is.</p><p>Somehow I have the feeling that you do not understand how web pages work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , how do you think those HTML pages , CSS sheets , JS files , images , and plugin files ( flash,java,etc ) work ? Download - &gt; run trough interpreter - &gt; render outputIt depends on the interpreter .
And I say that one is the same for any font , and therefore you could also use maybe an obscure Unicode character to wreak havoc in the interpreter .
No matter what font it is.Somehow I have the feeling that you do not understand how web pages work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, how do you think those HTML pages, CSS sheets, JS files, images, and plugin files (flash,java,etc) work?Download -&gt; run trough interpreter -&gt; render outputIt depends on the interpreter.
And I say that one is the same for any font, and therefore you could also use maybe an obscure Unicode character to wreak havoc in the interpreter.
No matter what font it is.Somehow I have the feeling that you do not understand how web pages work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716353</id>
	<title>Re:Oh the agony...</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1247757540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Assuming there isn't something relevant buried in about:config, you should be able to use greasemonkey to strip any @font-face stuff from the CSS...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming there is n't something relevant buried in about : config , you should be able to use greasemonkey to strip any @ font-face stuff from the CSS.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming there isn't something relevant buried in about:config, you should be able to use greasemonkey to strip any @font-face stuff from the CSS...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715923</id>
	<title>font of knowledge</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247755680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been waiting for something like this for a while. When I first got into web stuff I was struck by the vast difference between web layout and print layout. Yes, I understand the point about pixel-perfect control being a shackle and how web is supposed to have the flexibility of displaying on different hardware, different browsers, anything from a PDA to a 24" graphic designer screen. I've been bitten by websites that were so strickly formatted that they were unusable outside of their expected use. That being said, I still wanted embeddable fonts. Nice to see we have them now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been waiting for something like this for a while .
When I first got into web stuff I was struck by the vast difference between web layout and print layout .
Yes , I understand the point about pixel-perfect control being a shackle and how web is supposed to have the flexibility of displaying on different hardware , different browsers , anything from a PDA to a 24 " graphic designer screen .
I 've been bitten by websites that were so strickly formatted that they were unusable outside of their expected use .
That being said , I still wanted embeddable fonts .
Nice to see we have them now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been waiting for something like this for a while.
When I first got into web stuff I was struck by the vast difference between web layout and print layout.
Yes, I understand the point about pixel-perfect control being a shackle and how web is supposed to have the flexibility of displaying on different hardware, different browsers, anything from a PDA to a 24" graphic designer screen.
I've been bitten by websites that were so strickly formatted that they were unusable outside of their expected use.
That being said, I still wanted embeddable fonts.
Nice to see we have them now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716127</id>
	<title>Cue new security vulnerabilities in...3..2..1...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247756460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yargg!  I don't WANT more PRESENTATION oriented stuff in the browser/standards.</p><p>Chances are if a web site thinks a font set / size is a good idea, I probably won't like it at all.<br>My eyes aren't the greatest, and I like to use MY OWN font selections, and LARGE ones,<br>preferably with a custom / sane color &amp; background scheme too.<br>Nor do I want more BLOAT making page loads EVEN SLOWER so I can pull down a few hundred K of some random fonts someone thinks are cute but which I find annoying and unreadable.</p><p>What's next, embedding PDF files so the sites can have complete control over the rendering?</p><p>How about devoting the same amount of attention to, say, something USEFUL like SEMANTIC mark up<br>and informational SCHEMAs so the user's browser / application can actually easily find the INFORMATION the user wants, and their local browser can figure out how to PRESENT that information according to the USER'S PREFERENCES.</p><p>Pet peeve: sites that use formatting so that when you zoom in to the site text, it doesn't just re-wrap to fix into whatever horizontal space you have available, but actually just zooms off the right edge of the screen so you can't use that large of a font size / zoom without also using horizontal scrolling to see what just got shoved past the edge of the screen instead of wrapping to fit as it should.  Thanks, slashdot, et. al.  Take something that WORKS in "plain simple" HTML and break it with overzealous use of style sheets and enforced "we know what you want better than you do" formatting / layout.</p><p>Why do we want remote sites to have even more ability and tendency to load hundreds of K of crap onto our browsers?  This can't be a good thing for things like netbooks, kindle, iphone, blackberry, laptops, et. al. where the system default fonts are probably really BEST for that system's unique display size / type.  Do things that make the web work BETTER ubiquitously across browsers, platforms, not things that are intended to favor desktop PCs with high res displays and english/latin/western type languages, et. al. and make everything else worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yargg !
I do n't WANT more PRESENTATION oriented stuff in the browser/standards.Chances are if a web site thinks a font set / size is a good idea , I probably wo n't like it at all.My eyes are n't the greatest , and I like to use MY OWN font selections , and LARGE ones,preferably with a custom / sane color &amp; background scheme too.Nor do I want more BLOAT making page loads EVEN SLOWER so I can pull down a few hundred K of some random fonts someone thinks are cute but which I find annoying and unreadable.What 's next , embedding PDF files so the sites can have complete control over the rendering ? How about devoting the same amount of attention to , say , something USEFUL like SEMANTIC mark upand informational SCHEMAs so the user 's browser / application can actually easily find the INFORMATION the user wants , and their local browser can figure out how to PRESENT that information according to the USER 'S PREFERENCES.Pet peeve : sites that use formatting so that when you zoom in to the site text , it does n't just re-wrap to fix into whatever horizontal space you have available , but actually just zooms off the right edge of the screen so you ca n't use that large of a font size / zoom without also using horizontal scrolling to see what just got shoved past the edge of the screen instead of wrapping to fit as it should .
Thanks , slashdot , et .
al. Take something that WORKS in " plain simple " HTML and break it with overzealous use of style sheets and enforced " we know what you want better than you do " formatting / layout.Why do we want remote sites to have even more ability and tendency to load hundreds of K of crap onto our browsers ?
This ca n't be a good thing for things like netbooks , kindle , iphone , blackberry , laptops , et .
al. where the system default fonts are probably really BEST for that system 's unique display size / type .
Do things that make the web work BETTER ubiquitously across browsers , platforms , not things that are intended to favor desktop PCs with high res displays and english/latin/western type languages , et .
al. and make everything else worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yargg!
I don't WANT more PRESENTATION oriented stuff in the browser/standards.Chances are if a web site thinks a font set / size is a good idea, I probably won't like it at all.My eyes aren't the greatest, and I like to use MY OWN font selections, and LARGE ones,preferably with a custom / sane color &amp; background scheme too.Nor do I want more BLOAT making page loads EVEN SLOWER so I can pull down a few hundred K of some random fonts someone thinks are cute but which I find annoying and unreadable.What's next, embedding PDF files so the sites can have complete control over the rendering?How about devoting the same amount of attention to, say, something USEFUL like SEMANTIC mark upand informational SCHEMAs so the user's browser / application can actually easily find the INFORMATION the user wants, and their local browser can figure out how to PRESENT that information according to the USER'S PREFERENCES.Pet peeve: sites that use formatting so that when you zoom in to the site text, it doesn't just re-wrap to fix into whatever horizontal space you have available, but actually just zooms off the right edge of the screen so you can't use that large of a font size / zoom without also using horizontal scrolling to see what just got shoved past the edge of the screen instead of wrapping to fit as it should.
Thanks, slashdot, et.
al.  Take something that WORKS in "plain simple" HTML and break it with overzealous use of style sheets and enforced "we know what you want better than you do" formatting / layout.Why do we want remote sites to have even more ability and tendency to load hundreds of K of crap onto our browsers?
This can't be a good thing for things like netbooks, kindle, iphone, blackberry, laptops, et.
al. where the system default fonts are probably really BEST for that system's unique display size / type.
Do things that make the web work BETTER ubiquitously across browsers, platforms, not things that are intended to favor desktop PCs with high res displays and english/latin/western type languages, et.
al. and make everything else worse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717001</id>
	<title>Re:Fonts</title>
	<author>Joseph Lam</author>
	<datestamp>1247760000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Licensing?  Nightmare.<br>Bandwidth?  Eek.</p></div><p>Compared to all those CSS, Javascripts, images, multimedia contents currently being downloaded alongside webpages, it doesn't seem like a nightmare. In some cases it may actually save bandwidth (coz otherwise the text would have to be made as images).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Security?  Whoa!</p></div><p>Give browser developers time and things will improve. The implementation is still relatively new and less mature.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Compatibility?  Doesn't downgrade nicely (that page looks horrible in a "stable" browser of today and is almost unreadable)</p></div><p>That's the responsibility of the web developers. The spec allows for multiple failover fonts that if used properly should provide graceful downgrade.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Gains?  Geocities-like webpages that use every font they can just for the sake of it.  Seven million websites written in Comic Sans.  And only the sensible browsers will come with options to turn the damn thing off (and thus look even worse).</p></div><p>Then blame those incompetent web developers, not the enabling technology (otherwise you can blame HTML for allowing the use of colors). Look at it from the other side it provides a standardized way for competent developers to improve visual quality of text. It's fine if you want web technology to stay as it was in the 90s but the rest of the world will continue to move on.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Stupid idea, stupid execution (having to DOWNLOAD every font mentioned on a page?)</p></div><p>Developers can specify both local and remote fonts. Only remote fonts need to be downloaded and they will be cached just like images, CSS, etc...</p><p>Spend some time understanding something before bashing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Licensing ?
Nightmare.Bandwidth ? Eek.Compared to all those CSS , Javascripts , images , multimedia contents currently being downloaded alongside webpages , it does n't seem like a nightmare .
In some cases it may actually save bandwidth ( coz otherwise the text would have to be made as images ) .Security ?
Whoa ! Give browser developers time and things will improve .
The implementation is still relatively new and less mature.Compatibility ?
Does n't downgrade nicely ( that page looks horrible in a " stable " browser of today and is almost unreadable ) That 's the responsibility of the web developers .
The spec allows for multiple failover fonts that if used properly should provide graceful downgrade.Gains ?
Geocities-like webpages that use every font they can just for the sake of it .
Seven million websites written in Comic Sans .
And only the sensible browsers will come with options to turn the damn thing off ( and thus look even worse ) .Then blame those incompetent web developers , not the enabling technology ( otherwise you can blame HTML for allowing the use of colors ) .
Look at it from the other side it provides a standardized way for competent developers to improve visual quality of text .
It 's fine if you want web technology to stay as it was in the 90s but the rest of the world will continue to move on.Stupid idea , stupid execution ( having to DOWNLOAD every font mentioned on a page ?
) Developers can specify both local and remote fonts .
Only remote fonts need to be downloaded and they will be cached just like images , CSS , etc...Spend some time understanding something before bashing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Licensing?
Nightmare.Bandwidth?  Eek.Compared to all those CSS, Javascripts, images, multimedia contents currently being downloaded alongside webpages, it doesn't seem like a nightmare.
In some cases it may actually save bandwidth (coz otherwise the text would have to be made as images).Security?
Whoa!Give browser developers time and things will improve.
The implementation is still relatively new and less mature.Compatibility?
Doesn't downgrade nicely (that page looks horrible in a "stable" browser of today and is almost unreadable)That's the responsibility of the web developers.
The spec allows for multiple failover fonts that if used properly should provide graceful downgrade.Gains?
Geocities-like webpages that use every font they can just for the sake of it.
Seven million websites written in Comic Sans.
And only the sensible browsers will come with options to turn the damn thing off (and thus look even worse).Then blame those incompetent web developers, not the enabling technology (otherwise you can blame HTML for allowing the use of colors).
Look at it from the other side it provides a standardized way for competent developers to improve visual quality of text.
It's fine if you want web technology to stay as it was in the 90s but the rest of the world will continue to move on.Stupid idea, stupid execution (having to DOWNLOAD every font mentioned on a page?
)Developers can specify both local and remote fonts.
Only remote fonts need to be downloaded and they will be cached just like images, CSS, etc...Spend some time understanding something before bashing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716113</id>
	<title>Abused but Necessary</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1247756400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can easily see this getting abused.</p></div><p>Your prediction need only look back on UI technologies like Flash to realize that there will certainly be some of an "artistic" nature that will be enabled by this new technology to make their page look <a href="http://www.chkchkchk.net/" title="chkchkchk.net" rel="nofollow">like this</a> [chkchkchk.net].  Don't get me wrong, I love !!! and their music.  And I find the site amusing.  Horrendously confusing (you'll notice you can interact with those things) but a common occurrence among bands to take Flash to a level it's not supposed to go.  <br> <br>

And I welcome it.  Seriously, I'd rather have this be a well formed completely open standard in CSS and allow the creative types a way to vent and put tattoo or gothic or whatever font all over their page.  At least I won't need a plugin.  At least it won't be in some weird<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.swf file.  At least the browser will be able to show you something if you don't have the ability/desire to render it.  <br> <br>

I'm not going to start using this until everything's ironed out and your average web surfer finds it not only acceptable but desirable.  But I still am excited that CSS and HTML are meeting needs.  With IE6 soon dead, they are liberated.  <br> <br>

People will abuse the tools you give them.  If you don't believe me, go visit the graveyard that is Geocities.  Doesn't stop the rest of us from using the tools in the way they were meant to be used.  You might have an argument about this exacerbating the issue with these latest tools but I've always been one to promote unbridled liberation on the web.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can easily see this getting abused.Your prediction need only look back on UI technologies like Flash to realize that there will certainly be some of an " artistic " nature that will be enabled by this new technology to make their page look like this [ chkchkchk.net ] .
Do n't get me wrong , I love ! ! !
and their music .
And I find the site amusing .
Horrendously confusing ( you 'll notice you can interact with those things ) but a common occurrence among bands to take Flash to a level it 's not supposed to go .
And I welcome it .
Seriously , I 'd rather have this be a well formed completely open standard in CSS and allow the creative types a way to vent and put tattoo or gothic or whatever font all over their page .
At least I wo n't need a plugin .
At least it wo n't be in some weird .swf file .
At least the browser will be able to show you something if you do n't have the ability/desire to render it .
I 'm not going to start using this until everything 's ironed out and your average web surfer finds it not only acceptable but desirable .
But I still am excited that CSS and HTML are meeting needs .
With IE6 soon dead , they are liberated .
People will abuse the tools you give them .
If you do n't believe me , go visit the graveyard that is Geocities .
Does n't stop the rest of us from using the tools in the way they were meant to be used .
You might have an argument about this exacerbating the issue with these latest tools but I 've always been one to promote unbridled liberation on the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can easily see this getting abused.Your prediction need only look back on UI technologies like Flash to realize that there will certainly be some of an "artistic" nature that will be enabled by this new technology to make their page look like this [chkchkchk.net].
Don't get me wrong, I love !!!
and their music.
And I find the site amusing.
Horrendously confusing (you'll notice you can interact with those things) but a common occurrence among bands to take Flash to a level it's not supposed to go.
And I welcome it.
Seriously, I'd rather have this be a well formed completely open standard in CSS and allow the creative types a way to vent and put tattoo or gothic or whatever font all over their page.
At least I won't need a plugin.
At least it won't be in some weird .swf file.
At least the browser will be able to show you something if you don't have the ability/desire to render it.
I'm not going to start using this until everything's ironed out and your average web surfer finds it not only acceptable but desirable.
But I still am excited that CSS and HTML are meeting needs.
With IE6 soon dead, they are liberated.
People will abuse the tools you give them.
If you don't believe me, go visit the graveyard that is Geocities.
Doesn't stop the rest of us from using the tools in the way they were meant to be used.
You might have an argument about this exacerbating the issue with these latest tools but I've always been one to promote unbridled liberation on the web.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28751123</id>
	<title>Re:Web developers can now easily embed...</title>
	<author>nidarus</author>
	<datestamp>1248006300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The average "Web developer" knows nothing about type, and thinks "kearning" is something you do to corn on the cob.</p></div><p>Then why is the Web <em>developer</em> doing what should be the Web <em>designer's</em> job?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The average " Web developer " knows nothing about type , and thinks " kearning " is something you do to corn on the cob.Then why is the Web developer doing what should be the Web designer 's job ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The average "Web developer" knows nothing about type, and thinks "kearning" is something you do to corn on the cob.Then why is the Web developer doing what should be the Web designer's job?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28723917</id>
	<title>Re:Web developers can now easily embed...</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1247744160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kerning even.</p><p>Was Trainwreck an obtuse reference to tracking?</p><p>Oh what am I saying I'm a web-developer how could I possibly know anything about fonts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kerning even.Was Trainwreck an obtuse reference to tracking ? Oh what am I saying I 'm a web-developer how could I possibly know anything about fonts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kerning even.Was Trainwreck an obtuse reference to tracking?Oh what am I saying I'm a web-developer how could I possibly know anything about fonts?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716095</id>
	<title>Re:licensing issues for fonts</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247756340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean I can still use the web for a while before I have to bleach my eyeballs? Because one thing is certain, when this becomes mainstream I won't be able to open every other webpage without puking all over it because it insists in using cutsie-unique fonts that you need a cryptography degree for to even make out what those pseudo-kawaii letters are supposed to say.</p><p>Essentially, this is the 2.0 version of magenta-on-blue-on-colorful-wallpaper webpages we learned to love during the beginning of the age when the net hit the masses. What happened to "deliver hyperlinked content in an easy to browse and file way"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean I can still use the web for a while before I have to bleach my eyeballs ?
Because one thing is certain , when this becomes mainstream I wo n't be able to open every other webpage without puking all over it because it insists in using cutsie-unique fonts that you need a cryptography degree for to even make out what those pseudo-kawaii letters are supposed to say.Essentially , this is the 2.0 version of magenta-on-blue-on-colorful-wallpaper webpages we learned to love during the beginning of the age when the net hit the masses .
What happened to " deliver hyperlinked content in an easy to browse and file way " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean I can still use the web for a while before I have to bleach my eyeballs?
Because one thing is certain, when this becomes mainstream I won't be able to open every other webpage without puking all over it because it insists in using cutsie-unique fonts that you need a cryptography degree for to even make out what those pseudo-kawaii letters are supposed to say.Essentially, this is the 2.0 version of magenta-on-blue-on-colorful-wallpaper webpages we learned to love during the beginning of the age when the net hit the masses.
What happened to "deliver hyperlinked content in an easy to browse and file way"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719255</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on a sec...</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1247768340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>. But<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... something that downloads something from the internet and pushes it through a browser without asking anyone human first looks a wee bit problematic for me.</p></div><p>Yeah, hate it when browsers pull down images and text without my permission.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
But ... something that downloads something from the internet and pushes it through a browser without asking anyone human first looks a wee bit problematic for me.Yeah , hate it when browsers pull down images and text without my permission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
But ... something that downloads something from the internet and pushes it through a browser without asking anyone human first looks a wee bit problematic for me.Yeah, hate it when browsers pull down images and text without my permission.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718391</id>
	<title>Re:Oh Lord!</title>
	<author>horatio</author>
	<datestamp>1247765160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree it looks like crap, but it appears to be an issue with the font rendering engine (either FF3.5 itself or the OS) in Windows.  The fonts are artifacted in a bad way.  However, it looks pretty decent on Safari 4 (OS X) and FF3.5 (OS X).  I first pulled it up in Windows and was asking myself wtf the big deal was, and why they would choose such a horrible example to show off the technique, because it just looked that bad.
<br> <br>
There is a "warning" at the top of the page when viewing it in safari that the demo was only meant to be viewed in FF, but it looks fine.<br> <br>

Screenshots <a href="http://ktzr.net/cssfonts/cssfonts-FF35\_winxp.png" title="ktzr.net">WinXP</a> [ktzr.net], <a href="http://ktzr.net/cssfonts/cssfonts-FF35\_osx.png" title="ktzr.net">OS X, Firefox 3.5</a> [ktzr.net], <a href="http://ktzr.net/cssfonts/cssfonts-Safari4\_osx.png" title="ktzr.net">OSX, Safari 4</a> [ktzr.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree it looks like crap , but it appears to be an issue with the font rendering engine ( either FF3.5 itself or the OS ) in Windows .
The fonts are artifacted in a bad way .
However , it looks pretty decent on Safari 4 ( OS X ) and FF3.5 ( OS X ) .
I first pulled it up in Windows and was asking myself wtf the big deal was , and why they would choose such a horrible example to show off the technique , because it just looked that bad .
There is a " warning " at the top of the page when viewing it in safari that the demo was only meant to be viewed in FF , but it looks fine .
Screenshots WinXP [ ktzr.net ] , OS X , Firefox 3.5 [ ktzr.net ] , OSX , Safari 4 [ ktzr.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree it looks like crap, but it appears to be an issue with the font rendering engine (either FF3.5 itself or the OS) in Windows.
The fonts are artifacted in a bad way.
However, it looks pretty decent on Safari 4 (OS X) and FF3.5 (OS X).
I first pulled it up in Windows and was asking myself wtf the big deal was, and why they would choose such a horrible example to show off the technique, because it just looked that bad.
There is a "warning" at the top of the page when viewing it in safari that the demo was only meant to be viewed in FF, but it looks fine.
Screenshots WinXP [ktzr.net], OS X, Firefox 3.5 [ktzr.net], OSX, Safari 4 [ktzr.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28725051</id>
	<title>Re:quality is quality, however...</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1247752140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, this is really a good case for copyright and IP, since it would allow less restriction on the files. Sure, it would still happen, just like it happens with movies and music files, but it wouldn't legitimize the practice and would therefore help curb the commercial use of blatant copies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , this is really a good case for copyright and IP , since it would allow less restriction on the files .
Sure , it would still happen , just like it happens with movies and music files , but it would n't legitimize the practice and would therefore help curb the commercial use of blatant copies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, this is really a good case for copyright and IP, since it would allow less restriction on the files.
Sure, it would still happen, just like it happens with movies and music files, but it wouldn't legitimize the practice and would therefore help curb the commercial use of blatant copies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716137</id>
	<title>Font control</title>
	<author>The name is Dave. Ja</author>
	<datestamp>1247756520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again, the form versus function debate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>Apparently, there are some out there who feel that words alone are not enough; they need a particular font to convey emotion or a particular feel.<br>I just hope that any browser that supports this makes it optional, and I can turn off the downloading altogether.<br>Maybe I'm just paranoid, but it sounds like it's a great candidate for some security exploits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again , the form versus function debate ...Apparently , there are some out there who feel that words alone are not enough ; they need a particular font to convey emotion or a particular feel.I just hope that any browser that supports this makes it optional , and I can turn off the downloading altogether.Maybe I 'm just paranoid , but it sounds like it 's a great candidate for some security exploits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again, the form versus function debate ...Apparently, there are some out there who feel that words alone are not enough; they need a particular font to convey emotion or a particular feel.I just hope that any browser that supports this makes it optional, and I can turn off the downloading altogether.Maybe I'm just paranoid, but it sounds like it's a great candidate for some security exploits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719355</id>
	<title>Re:Fonts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247768700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>50-100k?</p><p>Lucida Grande comes in at a whopping 1.1MB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>50-100k ? Lucida Grande comes in at a whopping 1.1MB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>50-100k?Lucida Grande comes in at a whopping 1.1MB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719565</id>
	<title>Re:Web pages...</title>
	<author>jalefkowit</author>
	<datestamp>1247769420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We have the information we need, and we're satisfied. No need to put bells and whistles on it. If it were up to me (which it isn't), there would be no such thing as "web design". Web pages are not a fashion show, they're just means of sharing, displaying and publishing information. Let's keep it that way.</p></div></blockquote><p>If that's what you want, go use <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher\_(protocol)" title="wikipedia.org">Gopher</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Oh, you say, but nobody else is on Gopher for you to share, display and publish information with? They're all on the Web? Wonder why that is...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have the information we need , and we 're satisfied .
No need to put bells and whistles on it .
If it were up to me ( which it is n't ) , there would be no such thing as " web design " .
Web pages are not a fashion show , they 're just means of sharing , displaying and publishing information .
Let 's keep it that way.If that 's what you want , go use Gopher [ wikipedia.org ] .Oh , you say , but nobody else is on Gopher for you to share , display and publish information with ?
They 're all on the Web ?
Wonder why that is.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have the information we need, and we're satisfied.
No need to put bells and whistles on it.
If it were up to me (which it isn't), there would be no such thing as "web design".
Web pages are not a fashion show, they're just means of sharing, displaying and publishing information.
Let's keep it that way.If that's what you want, go use Gopher [wikipedia.org].Oh, you say, but nobody else is on Gopher for you to share, display and publish information with?
They're all on the Web?
Wonder why that is...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724145</id>
	<title>Re:quality is quality, however...</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1247745240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Adobe had their way, we never would have seen TrueType and you would have to pay $100 for every typeface and each would have to be installed on only your machine. Of course, it would look very good. If MS had their way, everything would be TrueType and you could only use the fonts that come installed with the OS, and any extra would be excluded at the OS level... and they would all suck.</p></div><p>Adobe and Microsoft are on the same side here: in favor of a font format with as much protection for authors as possible.  Microsoft is siding completely with the font foundries.  They're opposed by Mozilla, Apple, Google, and Opera, who have all implemented support for raw TTF in their browsers and don't think another format is necessary to protect font authors' interests.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Net result? If MS adopts @font-face for IE, game over (in a good way), and we will see a flowering of online type design. If MS drags its heels on this, @font-face could die on the vine, and we'll be stuck with Arial, for a VERY long time.</p></div><p> <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms530757(VS.85).aspx" title="microsoft.com">IE has supported @font-face</a> [microsoft.com] since IE4.  I.e., for twelve years.  It works perfectly fine in practice.  You just need to provide two separate rules, and two separate font files: one in EOT format for IE, one in TTF for everyone else.  IE implements CSS 2's @font-face, which was dropped from CSS 2.1, while the others implement CSS 3's version, so probably IE doesn't have as many web font-related features.  But basic support is definitely there.  So yes, you will be seeing web fonts used, I pretty much guarantee it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Adobe had their way , we never would have seen TrueType and you would have to pay $ 100 for every typeface and each would have to be installed on only your machine .
Of course , it would look very good .
If MS had their way , everything would be TrueType and you could only use the fonts that come installed with the OS , and any extra would be excluded at the OS level... and they would all suck.Adobe and Microsoft are on the same side here : in favor of a font format with as much protection for authors as possible .
Microsoft is siding completely with the font foundries .
They 're opposed by Mozilla , Apple , Google , and Opera , who have all implemented support for raw TTF in their browsers and do n't think another format is necessary to protect font authors ' interests.Net result ?
If MS adopts @ font-face for IE , game over ( in a good way ) , and we will see a flowering of online type design .
If MS drags its heels on this , @ font-face could die on the vine , and we 'll be stuck with Arial , for a VERY long time .
IE has supported @ font-face [ microsoft.com ] since IE4 .
I.e. , for twelve years .
It works perfectly fine in practice .
You just need to provide two separate rules , and two separate font files : one in EOT format for IE , one in TTF for everyone else .
IE implements CSS 2 's @ font-face , which was dropped from CSS 2.1 , while the others implement CSS 3 's version , so probably IE does n't have as many web font-related features .
But basic support is definitely there .
So yes , you will be seeing web fonts used , I pretty much guarantee it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Adobe had their way, we never would have seen TrueType and you would have to pay $100 for every typeface and each would have to be installed on only your machine.
Of course, it would look very good.
If MS had their way, everything would be TrueType and you could only use the fonts that come installed with the OS, and any extra would be excluded at the OS level... and they would all suck.Adobe and Microsoft are on the same side here: in favor of a font format with as much protection for authors as possible.
Microsoft is siding completely with the font foundries.
They're opposed by Mozilla, Apple, Google, and Opera, who have all implemented support for raw TTF in their browsers and don't think another format is necessary to protect font authors' interests.Net result?
If MS adopts @font-face for IE, game over (in a good way), and we will see a flowering of online type design.
If MS drags its heels on this, @font-face could die on the vine, and we'll be stuck with Arial, for a VERY long time.
IE has supported @font-face [microsoft.com] since IE4.
I.e., for twelve years.
It works perfectly fine in practice.
You just need to provide two separate rules, and two separate font files: one in EOT format for IE, one in TTF for everyone else.
IE implements CSS 2's @font-face, which was dropped from CSS 2.1, while the others implement CSS 3's version, so probably IE doesn't have as many web font-related features.
But basic support is definitely there.
So yes, you will be seeing web fonts used, I pretty much guarantee it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717365</id>
	<title>Re:Web developers can now easily embed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247761440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the fuck IS "kearning". Is it anything like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerning" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">kerning</a> [wikipedia.org]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the fuck IS " kearning " .
Is it anything like kerning [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the fuck IS "kearning".
Is it anything like kerning [wikipedia.org]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717691</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on a sec...</title>
	<author>flowsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1247762700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Postscript 'Type 3 programmatic' fonts contain executable Postscript code, which is Turing-complete. A correctly formed example could soak up CPU and memory if measures are not implemented to prevent this - I'm sure you will have seen the Postscript files which dynamically generate pretty pictures doing intensive calculations on a printer CPU. Of course, defects in the interpreter itself could be exploited, but as you say this applies to any functionality exposed to the outside world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Postscript 'Type 3 programmatic ' fonts contain executable Postscript code , which is Turing-complete .
A correctly formed example could soak up CPU and memory if measures are not implemented to prevent this - I 'm sure you will have seen the Postscript files which dynamically generate pretty pictures doing intensive calculations on a printer CPU .
Of course , defects in the interpreter itself could be exploited , but as you say this applies to any functionality exposed to the outside world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Postscript 'Type 3 programmatic' fonts contain executable Postscript code, which is Turing-complete.
A correctly formed example could soak up CPU and memory if measures are not implemented to prevent this - I'm sure you will have seen the Postscript files which dynamically generate pretty pictures doing intensive calculations on a printer CPU.
Of course, defects in the interpreter itself could be exploited, but as you say this applies to any functionality exposed to the outside world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717713</id>
	<title>Re:quality is quality, however...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247762760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>", fry it up, and come out with Ariel."</p><p>hmm, maybe I'll ahve seafood for lunch.</p><p>And yes, I saw your fishy pun... well done.</p><p>"Most of them craptastic, "<br>meh, that's true of everything creative. Most Books, Tv, Movies and fonts are crap. Always has been. It's the gems that make it worth while.</p><p>Making Fonts for money is pretty much dead, like many thing way and quick distribution has killed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" , fry it up , and come out with Ariel .
" hmm , maybe I 'll ahve seafood for lunch.And yes , I saw your fishy pun... well done .
" Most of them craptastic , " meh , that 's true of everything creative .
Most Books , Tv , Movies and fonts are crap .
Always has been .
It 's the gems that make it worth while.Making Fonts for money is pretty much dead , like many thing way and quick distribution has killed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>", fry it up, and come out with Ariel.
"hmm, maybe I'll ahve seafood for lunch.And yes, I saw your fishy pun... well done.
"Most of them craptastic, "meh, that's true of everything creative.
Most Books, Tv, Movies and fonts are crap.
Always has been.
It's the gems that make it worth while.Making Fonts for money is pretty much dead, like many thing way and quick distribution has killed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716043</id>
	<title>One more exploit path</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247756100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great.  Now bugs in the font rendering engine will lead to remote exploits just by visiting a malicious web page.</p><p>Someone should set up a central font repository to make it easier to replace a font with something malicious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great .
Now bugs in the font rendering engine will lead to remote exploits just by visiting a malicious web page.Someone should set up a central font repository to make it easier to replace a font with something malicious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great.
Now bugs in the font rendering engine will lead to remote exploits just by visiting a malicious web page.Someone should set up a central font repository to make it easier to replace a font with something malicious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716899</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but we need semantic fonts</title>
	<author>ChristTrekker</author>
	<datestamp>1247759640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking that just the other day.  I'd like to see the serif, sans-serif, monospace, cursive, and fantasy expanded to something like serif-oldstyle, serif-transitional, serif-modern, and serif-slab (that all default to generic serif if there are none available); sans-serif-grotesque, sans-serif-transitional, sans-serif-humanist, and sans-serif-geometric (again, all defaulting to generic sans-serif); monospace-serif and monospace-sans-serif (ditto); cursive-formal, cursive-casual, and cursive-blackletter (yadda yadda); and fantasy (of which there are too many possibilities to really split out).</p><p>Personally, I like the idea of downloadable fonts.  How's it any different than downloading images or other media to display in a web page?  Except that the text of the page is still usable even if the font can't download, or it's read offline, or viewed in Lynx, or whatever.  To me it seems to be a definite improvement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking that just the other day .
I 'd like to see the serif , sans-serif , monospace , cursive , and fantasy expanded to something like serif-oldstyle , serif-transitional , serif-modern , and serif-slab ( that all default to generic serif if there are none available ) ; sans-serif-grotesque , sans-serif-transitional , sans-serif-humanist , and sans-serif-geometric ( again , all defaulting to generic sans-serif ) ; monospace-serif and monospace-sans-serif ( ditto ) ; cursive-formal , cursive-casual , and cursive-blackletter ( yadda yadda ) ; and fantasy ( of which there are too many possibilities to really split out ) .Personally , I like the idea of downloadable fonts .
How 's it any different than downloading images or other media to display in a web page ?
Except that the text of the page is still usable even if the font ca n't download , or it 's read offline , or viewed in Lynx , or whatever .
To me it seems to be a definite improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking that just the other day.
I'd like to see the serif, sans-serif, monospace, cursive, and fantasy expanded to something like serif-oldstyle, serif-transitional, serif-modern, and serif-slab (that all default to generic serif if there are none available); sans-serif-grotesque, sans-serif-transitional, sans-serif-humanist, and sans-serif-geometric (again, all defaulting to generic sans-serif); monospace-serif and monospace-sans-serif (ditto); cursive-formal, cursive-casual, and cursive-blackletter (yadda yadda); and fantasy (of which there are too many possibilities to really split out).Personally, I like the idea of downloadable fonts.
How's it any different than downloading images or other media to display in a web page?
Except that the text of the page is still usable even if the font can't download, or it's read offline, or viewed in Lynx, or whatever.
To me it seems to be a definite improvement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716417</id>
	<title>Re:IE doesn't support font-face</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247757900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's time to bring back the "get firefox" banners and link buttons on web sites, with a little blurb like this:</p><p>"Does this site look lousy in your browser? It's because of that abusive monopolist company Microsoft ignoring the standards everyone else in the Universe follows, all while claiming to embrace those standards. Upgrade to Firefox, Safari, or Opera now to get a browser which actually adheres to those standards."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's time to bring back the " get firefox " banners and link buttons on web sites , with a little blurb like this : " Does this site look lousy in your browser ?
It 's because of that abusive monopolist company Microsoft ignoring the standards everyone else in the Universe follows , all while claiming to embrace those standards .
Upgrade to Firefox , Safari , or Opera now to get a browser which actually adheres to those standards .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's time to bring back the "get firefox" banners and link buttons on web sites, with a little blurb like this:"Does this site look lousy in your browser?
It's because of that abusive monopolist company Microsoft ignoring the standards everyone else in the Universe follows, all while claiming to embrace those standards.
Upgrade to Firefox, Safari, or Opera now to get a browser which actually adheres to those standards.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719731</id>
	<title>Re:Licensing nightmare?</title>
	<author>jalefkowit</author>
	<datestamp>1247769900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why is font licensing any different from image licensing?</p></div></blockquote><p>Because the browser implementers bothered to ask the font foundries <i>before</i> they rolled out downloadable font support, and because the world of 2009 is very different than the world of 1991.</p><p>Tim Berners-Lee didn't ask permission from anybody before adding image support to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldWideWeb" title="wikipedia.org">WorldWideWeb</a> [wikipedia.org], and even if he had, I doubt any of the stock or news photo houses, say, would have understood what he was trying to do well enough to care. Whereas today (thanks to Napster) <i>everyone</i> working in a creative industry understands very well what it means to have your work made available for instant downloading.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is font licensing any different from image licensing ? Because the browser implementers bothered to ask the font foundries before they rolled out downloadable font support , and because the world of 2009 is very different than the world of 1991.Tim Berners-Lee did n't ask permission from anybody before adding image support to WorldWideWeb [ wikipedia.org ] , and even if he had , I doubt any of the stock or news photo houses , say , would have understood what he was trying to do well enough to care .
Whereas today ( thanks to Napster ) everyone working in a creative industry understands very well what it means to have your work made available for instant downloading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is font licensing any different from image licensing?Because the browser implementers bothered to ask the font foundries before they rolled out downloadable font support, and because the world of 2009 is very different than the world of 1991.Tim Berners-Lee didn't ask permission from anybody before adding image support to WorldWideWeb [wikipedia.org], and even if he had, I doubt any of the stock or news photo houses, say, would have understood what he was trying to do well enough to care.
Whereas today (thanks to Napster) everyone working in a creative industry understands very well what it means to have your work made available for instant downloading.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716391</id>
	<title>Re:cutting edge considerd harmfull</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1247757720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Embeded font is there. Is unusable for a long period of time, maybe 5, maybe 10 years. Once the old browsers are forgothen and the new browsers dominate.</p></div><p>As long as your design degrades gracefully in browsers that don't support the new bells and whistles there is no problem using the latest and greatest. I don't see a problem from the user's point-of-view with giving people with the newest browser your "best" look and people with older browsers the "good enough" look.</p><p>Of course this may introduce a technical problem for you the designer because you might need to be extra careful to make sure you test that the design does indeed degrade gracefully - but that is the price you pay for playing close to the bleeding edge.</p><p>I can see this being *very* irritating if certain PHBs and corporate branding people catch wind of the new feature. First they'll demand to have the corporate font used for all pages, will be told that it will look different on older browsers (which they'll say "fine" to without actually taking in what is being said). Then a couple of weeks later they'll visit the site on Aunt Betty's old machine with IE6 and FF1.5 and demand that the site should look the same on all, and we'll be back to having sites that use images (or proprietary plugins) for all text just to get the fonts right...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Embeded font is there .
Is unusable for a long period of time , maybe 5 , maybe 10 years .
Once the old browsers are forgothen and the new browsers dominate.As long as your design degrades gracefully in browsers that do n't support the new bells and whistles there is no problem using the latest and greatest .
I do n't see a problem from the user 's point-of-view with giving people with the newest browser your " best " look and people with older browsers the " good enough " look.Of course this may introduce a technical problem for you the designer because you might need to be extra careful to make sure you test that the design does indeed degrade gracefully - but that is the price you pay for playing close to the bleeding edge.I can see this being * very * irritating if certain PHBs and corporate branding people catch wind of the new feature .
First they 'll demand to have the corporate font used for all pages , will be told that it will look different on older browsers ( which they 'll say " fine " to without actually taking in what is being said ) .
Then a couple of weeks later they 'll visit the site on Aunt Betty 's old machine with IE6 and FF1.5 and demand that the site should look the same on all , and we 'll be back to having sites that use images ( or proprietary plugins ) for all text just to get the fonts right.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Embeded font is there.
Is unusable for a long period of time, maybe 5, maybe 10 years.
Once the old browsers are forgothen and the new browsers dominate.As long as your design degrades gracefully in browsers that don't support the new bells and whistles there is no problem using the latest and greatest.
I don't see a problem from the user's point-of-view with giving people with the newest browser your "best" look and people with older browsers the "good enough" look.Of course this may introduce a technical problem for you the designer because you might need to be extra careful to make sure you test that the design does indeed degrade gracefully - but that is the price you pay for playing close to the bleeding edge.I can see this being *very* irritating if certain PHBs and corporate branding people catch wind of the new feature.
First they'll demand to have the corporate font used for all pages, will be told that it will look different on older browsers (which they'll say "fine" to without actually taking in what is being said).
Then a couple of weeks later they'll visit the site on Aunt Betty's old machine with IE6 and FF1.5 and demand that the site should look the same on all, and we'll be back to having sites that use images (or proprietary plugins) for all text just to get the fonts right...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28721587</id>
	<title>Re:Abused but Necessary</title>
	<author>legirons</author>
	<datestamp>1247777340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>I can easily see this getting abused.</p></div><p>Your prediction need only look back on UI technologies like Flash to realize that there will certainly be some of an "artistic" nature that will be enabled by this new technology</p></div><p>CSS has the awesome advantage of View -&gt; Page Style -&gt; No Style, which is invaluable when someone calculated that an absolute-positioned div would work *just right* with their computer's default font-size, or decides to use <a href="http://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/log/" title="dnalounge.com">small green serife text on a black background</a> [dnalounge.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can easily see this getting abused.Your prediction need only look back on UI technologies like Flash to realize that there will certainly be some of an " artistic " nature that will be enabled by this new technologyCSS has the awesome advantage of View - &gt; Page Style - &gt; No Style , which is invaluable when someone calculated that an absolute-positioned div would work * just right * with their computer 's default font-size , or decides to use small green serife text on a black background [ dnalounge.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can easily see this getting abused.Your prediction need only look back on UI technologies like Flash to realize that there will certainly be some of an "artistic" nature that will be enabled by this new technologyCSS has the awesome advantage of View -&gt; Page Style -&gt; No Style, which is invaluable when someone calculated that an absolute-positioned div would work *just right* with their computer's default font-size, or decides to use small green serife text on a black background [dnalounge.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719651</id>
	<title>Typography</title>
	<author>shar303</author>
	<datestamp>1247769660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Typography is a dying craft; anything that can be done to revive it should be applauded.</p><p>In these times there are very few that are prepared to uphold the standards that were created and refined by the past-masters of the print trade. Amongst the best of these are the artisans at <i> <a href="http://hosanna1.com/" title="hosanna1.com" rel="nofollow">http://hosanna1.com/</a> [hosanna1.com] </i> Breathtaking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Typography is a dying craft ; anything that can be done to revive it should be applauded.In these times there are very few that are prepared to uphold the standards that were created and refined by the past-masters of the print trade .
Amongst the best of these are the artisans at http : //hosanna1.com/ [ hosanna1.com ] Breathtaking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typography is a dying craft; anything that can be done to revive it should be applauded.In these times there are very few that are prepared to uphold the standards that were created and refined by the past-masters of the print trade.
Amongst the best of these are the artisans at  http://hosanna1.com/ [hosanna1.com]  Breathtaking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718087</id>
	<title>Re:typekit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247764200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I noticed that when typekit was announced. Reading some of those comments I thought that I had missed a post explaining everything, but there's nothing there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I noticed that when typekit was announced .
Reading some of those comments I thought that I had missed a post explaining everything , but there 's nothing there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I noticed that when typekit was announced.
Reading some of those comments I thought that I had missed a post explaining everything, but there's nothing there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716257</id>
	<title>Re:cutting edge considerd harmfull</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1247757060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the plus side, font support is probably easier than a lot of advanced CSS features to degrade with at least modest grace. As long as you stick to typefaces that make your text largely the same size as use of one of the old, safe, typefaces would.<br> <br>

Also, I'm strongly suspecting that all the Mac oriented sites will be all over this one pretty quickly. IE isn't an issue, and typography and design subtleties are the sort of thing that really get them worked up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the plus side , font support is probably easier than a lot of advanced CSS features to degrade with at least modest grace .
As long as you stick to typefaces that make your text largely the same size as use of one of the old , safe , typefaces would .
Also , I 'm strongly suspecting that all the Mac oriented sites will be all over this one pretty quickly .
IE is n't an issue , and typography and design subtleties are the sort of thing that really get them worked up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the plus side, font support is probably easier than a lot of advanced CSS features to degrade with at least modest grace.
As long as you stick to typefaces that make your text largely the same size as use of one of the old, safe, typefaces would.
Also, I'm strongly suspecting that all the Mac oriented sites will be all over this one pretty quickly.
IE isn't an issue, and typography and design subtleties are the sort of thing that really get them worked up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716359</id>
	<title>"considerd harmfull" considerd harmful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247757600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off, CSS is not the "latest technology" by any means.  Limited support for CSS appeared as early as IE3 and Netscape 4.x, and by the time IE5 was released, all of its contemporaries (Opera et al) had some kind of CSS implementation.  Sure it was inconsistent across browsers and a bit buggy, but it was a hell of a lot better than font tags.</p><p>Secondly, the advantage of CSS, if used correctly, is that bleeding edge features that are not available on all browsers at least have a way of degrading gracefully.  Sure, one browser out there can't import your whiz-bang new font right now, but if it degrades to the next best thing and does not suffer with usability, then I don't see why you should "have to avoid" these features.</p><p>CSS is well over 10 years old now.  Sure, CSS2 came along a couple of years after CSS1, and they're just now starting to agree on CSS2.1 and CSS3.  By 2005, most web development classes and best practices on the job stated that font tags were going the way of the dodo bird and to start using CSS.  If we went by your schedule of "don't even think about using it until 5 or 10 years after it's released" we'd still be using font tags.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , CSS is not the " latest technology " by any means .
Limited support for CSS appeared as early as IE3 and Netscape 4.x , and by the time IE5 was released , all of its contemporaries ( Opera et al ) had some kind of CSS implementation .
Sure it was inconsistent across browsers and a bit buggy , but it was a hell of a lot better than font tags.Secondly , the advantage of CSS , if used correctly , is that bleeding edge features that are not available on all browsers at least have a way of degrading gracefully .
Sure , one browser out there ca n't import your whiz-bang new font right now , but if it degrades to the next best thing and does not suffer with usability , then I do n't see why you should " have to avoid " these features.CSS is well over 10 years old now .
Sure , CSS2 came along a couple of years after CSS1 , and they 're just now starting to agree on CSS2.1 and CSS3 .
By 2005 , most web development classes and best practices on the job stated that font tags were going the way of the dodo bird and to start using CSS .
If we went by your schedule of " do n't even think about using it until 5 or 10 years after it 's released " we 'd still be using font tags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, CSS is not the "latest technology" by any means.
Limited support for CSS appeared as early as IE3 and Netscape 4.x, and by the time IE5 was released, all of its contemporaries (Opera et al) had some kind of CSS implementation.
Sure it was inconsistent across browsers and a bit buggy, but it was a hell of a lot better than font tags.Secondly, the advantage of CSS, if used correctly, is that bleeding edge features that are not available on all browsers at least have a way of degrading gracefully.
Sure, one browser out there can't import your whiz-bang new font right now, but if it degrades to the next best thing and does not suffer with usability, then I don't see why you should "have to avoid" these features.CSS is well over 10 years old now.
Sure, CSS2 came along a couple of years after CSS1, and they're just now starting to agree on CSS2.1 and CSS3.
By 2005, most web development classes and best practices on the job stated that font tags were going the way of the dodo bird and to start using CSS.
If we went by your schedule of "don't even think about using it until 5 or 10 years after it's released" we'd still be using font tags.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719159</id>
	<title>Demo site fails in Opera and IE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247767980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just checked the demo page in Opera 9.52 and IE 6.  Both rendered ugly unreadable hash, neither displayed the intended fonts.  Hard fail.  Sure, it's the Bad Browser Makers fault, but that means zip point zero to a professional designer / maintainer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just checked the demo page in Opera 9.52 and IE 6 .
Both rendered ugly unreadable hash , neither displayed the intended fonts .
Hard fail .
Sure , it 's the Bad Browser Makers fault , but that means zip point zero to a professional designer / maintainer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just checked the demo page in Opera 9.52 and IE 6.
Both rendered ugly unreadable hash, neither displayed the intended fonts.
Hard fail.
Sure, it's the Bad Browser Makers fault, but that means zip point zero to a professional designer / maintainer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28721269</id>
	<title>Re:Fonts</title>
	<author>PhxBlue</author>
	<datestamp>1247776020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Security? Security patches will come as they arise. How is this different than any other "potential for abuse"?</p></div><p>It's not.  So why should I open my system up to this potential for abuse when I wouldn't do it for others?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Security ?
Security patches will come as they arise .
How is this different than any other " potential for abuse " ? It 's not .
So why should I open my system up to this potential for abuse when I would n't do it for others ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security?
Security patches will come as they arise.
How is this different than any other "potential for abuse"?It's not.
So why should I open my system up to this potential for abuse when I wouldn't do it for others?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716063</id>
	<title>Web developers can now easily embed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247756220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>... and web browsers can easily be set to ignore.<br> <br>The average "Web developer" knows nothing about type, and thinks "kearning" is something you do to corn on the cob. Read a whole essay in Trainwreck Bold Oblique? No thanks.<br> <br>kulakovich</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and web browsers can easily be set to ignore .
The average " Web developer " knows nothing about type , and thinks " kearning " is something you do to corn on the cob .
Read a whole essay in Trainwreck Bold Oblique ?
No thanks .
kulakovich</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and web browsers can easily be set to ignore.
The average "Web developer" knows nothing about type, and thinks "kearning" is something you do to corn on the cob.
Read a whole essay in Trainwreck Bold Oblique?
No thanks.
kulakovich</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719237</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but we need semantic fonts</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1247768220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>he web page in the example really has no place specifying the exact font which should be used, as people with visual impairments, people with low-res portable devices, or people whose native language isn't based on a latin script, might have extreme difficulty reading it.</p></div><p>And if they want to exclude those people from reading their web pages, why should they not be able to?  It's their loss in the end - because sure as heck there will soon be a competitor which<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/does/ consider accessibility.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>he web page in the example really has no place specifying the exact font which should be used , as people with visual impairments , people with low-res portable devices , or people whose native language is n't based on a latin script , might have extreme difficulty reading it.And if they want to exclude those people from reading their web pages , why should they not be able to ?
It 's their loss in the end - because sure as heck there will soon be a competitor which /does/ consider accessibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he web page in the example really has no place specifying the exact font which should be used, as people with visual impairments, people with low-res portable devices, or people whose native language isn't based on a latin script, might have extreme difficulty reading it.And if they want to exclude those people from reading their web pages, why should they not be able to?
It's their loss in the end - because sure as heck there will soon be a competitor which /does/ consider accessibility.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716501</id>
	<title>Conflicted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247758260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just don't know how to feel about this.</p><p>More DRM in the world == bad.</p><p>Less Flash in the world == good.</p><p>But *without* DRM, this would give us... more web pages with less content and more "design"... ugh.</p><p>Oh, well, anything that keeps those annoying web designers out of *my* face will be fine, I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just do n't know how to feel about this.More DRM in the world = = bad.Less Flash in the world = = good.But * without * DRM , this would give us... more web pages with less content and more " design " ... ugh.Oh , well , anything that keeps those annoying web designers out of * my * face will be fine , I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just don't know how to feel about this.More DRM in the world == bad.Less Flash in the world == good.But *without* DRM, this would give us... more web pages with less content and more "design"... ugh.Oh, well, anything that keeps those annoying web designers out of *my* face will be fine, I guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717995</id>
	<title>Re:Fonts</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1247763780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In fairness, the licensing issue is a bit more difficult than that for images.  Good fonts are extremely valuable, far more so than any single image.  This system involves handing them out on a plate; expect to see a lot of ignorant developers getting shafted by the foundries.  That said, I don't think it's a major issue; I suspect we'll see the emergence of a certain class of web-available fonts and the rest will simply not be sold on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fairness , the licensing issue is a bit more difficult than that for images .
Good fonts are extremely valuable , far more so than any single image .
This system involves handing them out on a plate ; expect to see a lot of ignorant developers getting shafted by the foundries .
That said , I do n't think it 's a major issue ; I suspect we 'll see the emergence of a certain class of web-available fonts and the rest will simply not be sold on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fairness, the licensing issue is a bit more difficult than that for images.
Good fonts are extremely valuable, far more so than any single image.
This system involves handing them out on a plate; expect to see a lot of ignorant developers getting shafted by the foundries.
That said, I don't think it's a major issue; I suspect we'll see the emergence of a certain class of web-available fonts and the rest will simply not be sold on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718281</id>
	<title>Re:IE doesn't support font-face</title>
	<author>marsu\_k</author>
	<datestamp>1247764860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Great idea, though. I hope MS implements it in future versions of IE.</p></div><p>Yeah, it's a great idea, which is why MS will probably implement it as fast as they did position:fixed,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:hover for other elements than anchors and PNG transparency (there were five years between IE6 and IE7).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great idea , though .
I hope MS implements it in future versions of IE.Yeah , it 's a great idea , which is why MS will probably implement it as fast as they did position : fixed , : hover for other elements than anchors and PNG transparency ( there were five years between IE6 and IE7 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great idea, though.
I hope MS implements it in future versions of IE.Yeah, it's a great idea, which is why MS will probably implement it as fast as they did position:fixed, :hover for other elements than anchors and PNG transparency (there were five years between IE6 and IE7).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716019</id>
	<title>Kill Flash!</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1247756040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopefully, this will be another nail in the Flash coffin. Now, if they could agree on a codec for the video tag this would be a great year for the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully , this will be another nail in the Flash coffin .
Now , if they could agree on a codec for the video tag this would be a great year for the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully, this will be another nail in the Flash coffin.
Now, if they could agree on a codec for the video tag this would be a great year for the web.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715971</id>
	<title>licensing issues for fonts</title>
	<author>dysmey</author>
	<datestamp>1247755860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was an Ars Technica article that discusses font licensing issues and how they would pour ice water on the potential for @font-face:</p><blockquote><div><p> <a href="http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/07/font-face-typekit-and-font-licensing-the-state-of-web-type.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">The hazy future of Web typography</a> [arstechnica.com] </p></div> </blockquote><p>Until those issues are resolved, don't expect @font-face to make the Web more than bland.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was an Ars Technica article that discusses font licensing issues and how they would pour ice water on the potential for @ font-face : The hazy future of Web typography [ arstechnica.com ] Until those issues are resolved , do n't expect @ font-face to make the Web more than bland .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was an Ars Technica article that discusses font licensing issues and how they would pour ice water on the potential for @font-face: The hazy future of Web typography [arstechnica.com]  Until those issues are resolved, don't expect @font-face to make the Web more than bland.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717529</id>
	<title>Re:IE doesn't support font-face</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1247762100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And that is pretty much a deal breaker for any real world web designer.</p></div><p>Only for the crappy ones.  The good ones will realize that they can make a site look extra-nice in modern browsers, while still displaying adequately on legacy platforms.  It's not like the fallback is "don't use any font at all".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that is pretty much a deal breaker for any real world web designer.Only for the crappy ones .
The good ones will realize that they can make a site look extra-nice in modern browsers , while still displaying adequately on legacy platforms .
It 's not like the fallback is " do n't use any font at all " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that is pretty much a deal breaker for any real world web designer.Only for the crappy ones.
The good ones will realize that they can make a site look extra-nice in modern browsers, while still displaying adequately on legacy platforms.
It's not like the fallback is "don't use any font at all".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716959</id>
	<title>Re:Fonts</title>
	<author>suggsjc</author>
	<datestamp>1247759820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, somebody is grumpy...and ill informed.</p><p>Licensing? Resolvable.  No different than "copyrighted" images and the licensing for them.  Honest developers will use properly licensed material (fonts, images, etc), dishonest or uninformed developers won't care.<br>Bandwidth? At 50-100k they are not that much compared to swf files or large images previously used (also, you can cache them)<br>Security? Security patches will come as they arise.  How is this different than any other "potential for abuse"?<br>Compatibility? Does degrade nicely, you can specify the web fonts but fall back to "traditional" fonts<br>Gains? Designers will have flexibility!  They won't have to rely on images to produce "nice fonts" and the pages can be more semantic (text &gt; images). This is just a few of the potential gains.</p><p>Do you really want to hold back progress because YOU think something is stupid and YOU would prefer no styling at all just standard html?  Also, you do not have to "DOWNLOAD every font mentioned on a page", just the ones you want to specify, so get your facts straight before you jump to irrational conclusions.  Get your morning coffee, relax and realize that this is progress even if you don't see the benefit in the implementation/execution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , somebody is grumpy...and ill informed.Licensing ?
Resolvable. No different than " copyrighted " images and the licensing for them .
Honest developers will use properly licensed material ( fonts , images , etc ) , dishonest or uninformed developers wo n't care.Bandwidth ?
At 50-100k they are not that much compared to swf files or large images previously used ( also , you can cache them ) Security ?
Security patches will come as they arise .
How is this different than any other " potential for abuse " ? Compatibility ?
Does degrade nicely , you can specify the web fonts but fall back to " traditional " fontsGains ?
Designers will have flexibility !
They wo n't have to rely on images to produce " nice fonts " and the pages can be more semantic ( text &gt; images ) .
This is just a few of the potential gains.Do you really want to hold back progress because YOU think something is stupid and YOU would prefer no styling at all just standard html ?
Also , you do not have to " DOWNLOAD every font mentioned on a page " , just the ones you want to specify , so get your facts straight before you jump to irrational conclusions .
Get your morning coffee , relax and realize that this is progress even if you do n't see the benefit in the implementation/execution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, somebody is grumpy...and ill informed.Licensing?
Resolvable.  No different than "copyrighted" images and the licensing for them.
Honest developers will use properly licensed material (fonts, images, etc), dishonest or uninformed developers won't care.Bandwidth?
At 50-100k they are not that much compared to swf files or large images previously used (also, you can cache them)Security?
Security patches will come as they arise.
How is this different than any other "potential for abuse"?Compatibility?
Does degrade nicely, you can specify the web fonts but fall back to "traditional" fontsGains?
Designers will have flexibility!
They won't have to rely on images to produce "nice fonts" and the pages can be more semantic (text &gt; images).
This is just a few of the potential gains.Do you really want to hold back progress because YOU think something is stupid and YOU would prefer no styling at all just standard html?
Also, you do not have to "DOWNLOAD every font mentioned on a page", just the ones you want to specify, so get your facts straight before you jump to irrational conclusions.
Get your morning coffee, relax and realize that this is progress even if you don't see the benefit in the implementation/execution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716765</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but we need semantic fonts</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1247759160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about combining both? Basically, add another abstraction layer: The CSS offers semantic font names for the tag, and additionally allows to provide a mapping for "stylistic" font names. That is, the CSS could specify e.g. "script" for h1 tags and h2 tags, and in a separate section could specify that "script" should be rendered with "handwriting.ttf." That way you'd get </p><ul> <li>more consistency/easier modification for the web author: If you later decide that you want to use "manualscript.ttf" instead of "handwriting.ttf", you have to change it only in one place, instead of all tag styles you have used them in.</li><li>more flexibility for the web reader: You can switch off using the supplied fonts without at the same time switching off using the intended font style (i.e. you can still use script whereever the web designer intended its use, but with your web browser's default script font instead of the web page supplied one, <em>in addition</em> to just overriding the style for certain tags).</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about combining both ?
Basically , add another abstraction layer : The CSS offers semantic font names for the tag , and additionally allows to provide a mapping for " stylistic " font names .
That is , the CSS could specify e.g .
" script " for h1 tags and h2 tags , and in a separate section could specify that " script " should be rendered with " handwriting.ttf .
" That way you 'd get more consistency/easier modification for the web author : If you later decide that you want to use " manualscript.ttf " instead of " handwriting.ttf " , you have to change it only in one place , instead of all tag styles you have used them in.more flexibility for the web reader : You can switch off using the supplied fonts without at the same time switching off using the intended font style ( i.e .
you can still use script whereever the web designer intended its use , but with your web browser 's default script font instead of the web page supplied one , in addition to just overriding the style for certain tags ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about combining both?
Basically, add another abstraction layer: The CSS offers semantic font names for the tag, and additionally allows to provide a mapping for "stylistic" font names.
That is, the CSS could specify e.g.
"script" for h1 tags and h2 tags, and in a separate section could specify that "script" should be rendered with "handwriting.ttf.
" That way you'd get  more consistency/easier modification for the web author: If you later decide that you want to use "manualscript.ttf" instead of "handwriting.ttf", you have to change it only in one place, instead of all tag styles you have used them in.more flexibility for the web reader: You can switch off using the supplied fonts without at the same time switching off using the intended font style (i.e.
you can still use script whereever the web designer intended its use, but with your web browser's default script font instead of the web page supplied one, in addition to just overriding the style for certain tags).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717179</id>
	<title>At  least you'll have options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247760660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I know some css nerds will tell me if I feel that way I should use my own css. first off I don't have time for that. second, it's likely if I mess with CSS on an overly tuned web page i;ll make it less readable not more.</p></div></blockquote><p>I still think this can only improve your situation. As you said, you can use your own CSS, or none at all (in FireFox: View &gt; Page Style &gt; No Style). You may be too lazy to change it, but at least you'll have the option.</p><p>People already use non-standard fonts on web pages. They just use images or Flash or whatever, which gives the user zero control over appearance.</p><p>Additional benefits: since these wacky fonts will be sent as actual text, you'll still be able to Control+F search them, resize them, index them with a search engine, or have them read to you if you're blind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know some css nerds will tell me if I feel that way I should use my own css .
first off I do n't have time for that .
second , it 's likely if I mess with CSS on an overly tuned web page i ; ll make it less readable not more.I still think this can only improve your situation .
As you said , you can use your own CSS , or none at all ( in FireFox : View &gt; Page Style &gt; No Style ) .
You may be too lazy to change it , but at least you 'll have the option.People already use non-standard fonts on web pages .
They just use images or Flash or whatever , which gives the user zero control over appearance.Additional benefits : since these wacky fonts will be sent as actual text , you 'll still be able to Control + F search them , resize them , index them with a search engine , or have them read to you if you 're blind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know some css nerds will tell me if I feel that way I should use my own css.
first off I don't have time for that.
second, it's likely if I mess with CSS on an overly tuned web page i;ll make it less readable not more.I still think this can only improve your situation.
As you said, you can use your own CSS, or none at all (in FireFox: View &gt; Page Style &gt; No Style).
You may be too lazy to change it, but at least you'll have the option.People already use non-standard fonts on web pages.
They just use images or Flash or whatever, which gives the user zero control over appearance.Additional benefits: since these wacky fonts will be sent as actual text, you'll still be able to Control+F search them, resize them, index them with a search engine, or have them read to you if you're blind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716207</id>
	<title>Safari crashed right off</title>
	<author>webdog314</author>
	<datestamp>1247756820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh boy, this can't be good.  I could really see this being used maliciously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh boy , this ca n't be good .
I could really see this being used maliciously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh boy, this can't be good.
I could really see this being used maliciously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717777</id>
	<title>blink</title>
	<author>amoeba1911</author>
	<datestamp>1247763120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wish the &lt;blink&gt; tag still worked, it would go really well with custom fonts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish the tag still worked , it would go really well with custom fonts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish the  tag still worked, it would go really well with custom fonts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025</id>
	<title>Fonts</title>
	<author>ledow</author>
	<datestamp>1247756100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Licensing?  Nightmare.<br>Bandwidth?  Eek.<br>Security?  Whoa!<br>Compatibility?  Doesn't downgrade nicely (that page looks horrible in a "stable" browser of today and is almost unreadable)<br>Gains?  Geocities-like webpages that use every font they can just for the sake of it.  Seven million websites written in Comic Sans.  And only the sensible browsers will come with options to turn the damn thing off (and thus look even worse).</p><p>Stupid idea, stupid execution (having to DOWNLOAD every font mentioned on a page?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Licensing ?
Nightmare.Bandwidth ? Eek.Security ?
Whoa ! Compatibility ? Does n't downgrade nicely ( that page looks horrible in a " stable " browser of today and is almost unreadable ) Gains ?
Geocities-like webpages that use every font they can just for the sake of it .
Seven million websites written in Comic Sans .
And only the sensible browsers will come with options to turn the damn thing off ( and thus look even worse ) .Stupid idea , stupid execution ( having to DOWNLOAD every font mentioned on a page ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Licensing?
Nightmare.Bandwidth?  Eek.Security?
Whoa!Compatibility?  Doesn't downgrade nicely (that page looks horrible in a "stable" browser of today and is almost unreadable)Gains?
Geocities-like webpages that use every font they can just for the sake of it.
Seven million websites written in Comic Sans.
And only the sensible browsers will come with options to turn the damn thing off (and thus look even worse).Stupid idea, stupid execution (having to DOWNLOAD every font mentioned on a page?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716377</id>
	<title>I smell a new firefox add-on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247757660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no@font-face</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no @ font-face</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no@font-face</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716809</id>
	<title>Re:Oh Lord!</title>
	<author>SlashDotDotDot</author>
	<datestamp>1247759340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try enabling ClearType.  On XP: Right click on your desktop -&gt; Properties -&gt; Appearance -&gt; Effect -&gt; Smooth edges of screen fonts -&gt; ClearType.</p><p>This makes some fonts look worse, but it makes that page look a <b>lot</b> better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try enabling ClearType .
On XP : Right click on your desktop - &gt; Properties - &gt; Appearance - &gt; Effect - &gt; Smooth edges of screen fonts - &gt; ClearType.This makes some fonts look worse , but it makes that page look a lot better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try enabling ClearType.
On XP: Right click on your desktop -&gt; Properties -&gt; Appearance -&gt; Effect -&gt; Smooth edges of screen fonts -&gt; ClearType.This makes some fonts look worse, but it makes that page look a lot better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719099</id>
	<title>Re:Web pages...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247767740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>@font-face actually helps you with that. Just disable style sheets in your browser. With older hackish solutions such as images or sIFR you would have to rely on the alternative content, now it's the same content for everybody, which is great for accessibility and for the aesthetically challenged likes of you. I would still recommend you to read up on how good (not fancy) design is vital in getting information across.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>@ font-face actually helps you with that .
Just disable style sheets in your browser .
With older hackish solutions such as images or sIFR you would have to rely on the alternative content , now it 's the same content for everybody , which is great for accessibility and for the aesthetically challenged likes of you .
I would still recommend you to read up on how good ( not fancy ) design is vital in getting information across .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>@font-face actually helps you with that.
Just disable style sheets in your browser.
With older hackish solutions such as images or sIFR you would have to rely on the alternative content, now it's the same content for everybody, which is great for accessibility and for the aesthetically challenged likes of you.
I would still recommend you to read up on how good (not fancy) design is vital in getting information across.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28721649</id>
	<title>Actually, you're wrong about the licensing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247777520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way the law works in most jurisdictions is that fonts themselves are governed by copyright, but that texts set in that font are not affected by its copyright. The rationale is that that's the whole point of fonts. However, this is self-contradictory, since any substantial text contains enough information to reconstruct the font. Now, in the paper world this was sufficiently cumbersome that only font companies could reasonably do this and they watched each other. That didn't prevent look-alikes and close almost clones of course, but that's another story.<br>However in the digital world, the actual font file is distributed along with the text. You now have the right to copy a text set in a font, if the copyright holder of the text allows you to, in that font even if you don't have a license for it, and make any changes you wish, but at the same time you don't. And both systems if applied consistently are wrong. For certain artistic works the fonts may contribute so much to the mood or affect the document in some other way that not being able to copy the font would essentially infect the document with the copyright of the font, which is exactly what you don't want. On the other hand, the font designers need to make a living and currently copyright is the only protection fonts have. There's a special page in the copyright act for fonts and it just reads: "Here be dragons."<br>Of course these problems don't appear if you just use free fonts, or if you hold the rights for both the text and the font, I hope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way the law works in most jurisdictions is that fonts themselves are governed by copyright , but that texts set in that font are not affected by its copyright .
The rationale is that that 's the whole point of fonts .
However , this is self-contradictory , since any substantial text contains enough information to reconstruct the font .
Now , in the paper world this was sufficiently cumbersome that only font companies could reasonably do this and they watched each other .
That did n't prevent look-alikes and close almost clones of course , but that 's another story.However in the digital world , the actual font file is distributed along with the text .
You now have the right to copy a text set in a font , if the copyright holder of the text allows you to , in that font even if you do n't have a license for it , and make any changes you wish , but at the same time you do n't .
And both systems if applied consistently are wrong .
For certain artistic works the fonts may contribute so much to the mood or affect the document in some other way that not being able to copy the font would essentially infect the document with the copyright of the font , which is exactly what you do n't want .
On the other hand , the font designers need to make a living and currently copyright is the only protection fonts have .
There 's a special page in the copyright act for fonts and it just reads : " Here be dragons .
" Of course these problems do n't appear if you just use free fonts , or if you hold the rights for both the text and the font , I hope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way the law works in most jurisdictions is that fonts themselves are governed by copyright, but that texts set in that font are not affected by its copyright.
The rationale is that that's the whole point of fonts.
However, this is self-contradictory, since any substantial text contains enough information to reconstruct the font.
Now, in the paper world this was sufficiently cumbersome that only font companies could reasonably do this and they watched each other.
That didn't prevent look-alikes and close almost clones of course, but that's another story.However in the digital world, the actual font file is distributed along with the text.
You now have the right to copy a text set in a font, if the copyright holder of the text allows you to, in that font even if you don't have a license for it, and make any changes you wish, but at the same time you don't.
And both systems if applied consistently are wrong.
For certain artistic works the fonts may contribute so much to the mood or affect the document in some other way that not being able to copy the font would essentially infect the document with the copyright of the font, which is exactly what you don't want.
On the other hand, the font designers need to make a living and currently copyright is the only protection fonts have.
There's a special page in the copyright act for fonts and it just reads: "Here be dragons.
"Of course these problems don't appear if you just use free fonts, or if you hold the rights for both the text and the font, I hope.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719435</id>
	<title>Re:Oh the agony...</title>
	<author>jalefkowit</author>
	<datestamp>1247768940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now instead of quickly rendered and clearly legible standard fonts, web pages will be burdened with additional downloads...</p></div></blockquote><p>If we can replace GIFs and JPEGs of text in a particular typeface saved as an image, and just allow the user to download the typeface itself once and then use it everywhere that face is called for, we would likely see a considerable <i>reduction</i> in page sizes. Especially when you consider that if multiple sites use the same font they could all piggyback off that single download.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now instead of quickly rendered and clearly legible standard fonts , web pages will be burdened with additional downloads...If we can replace GIFs and JPEGs of text in a particular typeface saved as an image , and just allow the user to download the typeface itself once and then use it everywhere that face is called for , we would likely see a considerable reduction in page sizes .
Especially when you consider that if multiple sites use the same font they could all piggyback off that single download .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now instead of quickly rendered and clearly legible standard fonts, web pages will be burdened with additional downloads...If we can replace GIFs and JPEGs of text in a particular typeface saved as an image, and just allow the user to download the typeface itself once and then use it everywhere that face is called for, we would likely see a considerable reduction in page sizes.
Especially when you consider that if multiple sites use the same font they could all piggyback off that single download.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718045</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but we need semantic fonts</title>
	<author>Hal\_Porter</author>
	<datestamp>1247764080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the scheme should allow you to specify</p><p>1) The style of the font<br>2) Whether it is sans or serif<br>3) The preferred supplier</p><p>E.g. "comic-sans-ms".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the scheme should allow you to specify1 ) The style of the font2 ) Whether it is sans or serif3 ) The preferred supplierE.g .
" comic-sans-ms " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the scheme should allow you to specify1) The style of the font2) Whether it is sans or serif3) The preferred supplierE.g.
"comic-sans-ms".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716715</id>
	<title>Re:Self-downloading fonts...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247759040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean other than trough the much more complex interpreters of Flash, Java and Quicktime?</p><p>It's shocking how many people here don't know that everything on a web page is "self downloading" (or more correct: telling the browser that it needs that file to do something, and the browser knowing how to handle it.)</p><p>And then the next day, the go and download a crack off of some random site, unrar it and run the exe as if it were the most normal thing in the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean other than trough the much more complex interpreters of Flash , Java and Quicktime ? It 's shocking how many people here do n't know that everything on a web page is " self downloading " ( or more correct : telling the browser that it needs that file to do something , and the browser knowing how to handle it .
) And then the next day , the go and download a crack off of some random site , unrar it and run the exe as if it were the most normal thing in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean other than trough the much more complex interpreters of Flash, Java and Quicktime?It's shocking how many people here don't know that everything on a web page is "self downloading" (or more correct: telling the browser that it needs that file to do something, and the browser knowing how to handle it.
)And then the next day, the go and download a crack off of some random site, unrar it and run the exe as if it were the most normal thing in the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716147</id>
	<title>Re:Courier, Arial, Times New Roman</title>
	<author>pete-classic</author>
	<datestamp>1247756580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about Helvetica instead of the cheap Microsoft* knock-off?</p><p>-Peter</p><p>*Okay, yes, it's Monotype, but popularized by Microsoft's inclusion as a TTF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about Helvetica instead of the cheap Microsoft * knock-off ? -Peter * Okay , yes , it 's Monotype , but popularized by Microsoft 's inclusion as a TTF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about Helvetica instead of the cheap Microsoft* knock-off?-Peter*Okay, yes, it's Monotype, but popularized by Microsoft's inclusion as a TTF.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28723831</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but we need semantic fonts</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1247743740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fantasy (also monospace) is one of the generic font types available already - see eg <a href="http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Style" title="w3.org">http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Style</a> [w3.org] (section: "Setting the font family") from 2002.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fantasy ( also monospace ) is one of the generic font types available already - see eg http : //www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Style [ w3.org ] ( section : " Setting the font family " ) from 2002 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fantasy (also monospace) is one of the generic font types available already - see eg http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Style [w3.org] (section: "Setting the font family") from 2002.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716637</id>
	<title>Re:Self-downloading fonts...</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1247758800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably a while.   But it will probably happen.   Broken font rendering implementations are widespread - you can completely hose MacOS if you load a font with bogus data in it.   Chances are there's a way to turn that into an exploit, but nobody's bothered in the past because there's no easy way to stuff a font down the computer's throat over the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably a while .
But it will probably happen .
Broken font rendering implementations are widespread - you can completely hose MacOS if you load a font with bogus data in it .
Chances are there 's a way to turn that into an exploit , but nobody 's bothered in the past because there 's no easy way to stuff a font down the computer 's throat over the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably a while.
But it will probably happen.
Broken font rendering implementations are widespread - you can completely hose MacOS if you load a font with bogus data in it.
Chances are there's a way to turn that into an exploit, but nobody's bothered in the past because there's no easy way to stuff a font down the computer's throat over the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716461</id>
	<title>Re:IE doesn't support font-face</title>
	<author>Serious Callers Only</author>
	<datestamp>1247758080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess IE users will have to be happy with Georgia then. I see no reason IE should hold everyone else back, and @font-face is an awful lot better than the proposed MS alternative or the TypeKit solution in search of a problem mentioned in the ArsTechnica article.</p><p>The only downside to it is that foundries are dragging their feet trying to pretend that the font licenses are only for paper. Plenty of younger designers are not so blinkered though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess IE users will have to be happy with Georgia then .
I see no reason IE should hold everyone else back , and @ font-face is an awful lot better than the proposed MS alternative or the TypeKit solution in search of a problem mentioned in the ArsTechnica article.The only downside to it is that foundries are dragging their feet trying to pretend that the font licenses are only for paper .
Plenty of younger designers are not so blinkered though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess IE users will have to be happy with Georgia then.
I see no reason IE should hold everyone else back, and @font-face is an awful lot better than the proposed MS alternative or the TypeKit solution in search of a problem mentioned in the ArsTechnica article.The only downside to it is that foundries are dragging their feet trying to pretend that the font licenses are only for paper.
Plenty of younger designers are not so blinkered though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719977</id>
	<title>Re:To disable @font-face in Firefox 3.5</title>
	<author>Ksevio</author>
	<datestamp>1247770920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks! I was looking for a way to make firefox less compatible with websites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks !
I was looking for a way to make firefox less compatible with websites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks!
I was looking for a way to make firefox less compatible with websites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724553</id>
	<title>Re:Oh Lord!</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1247747940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Either adblock or noscript will have to add an 'opt out' for such gems as bigtittyfont and such.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Either adblock or noscript will have to add an 'opt out ' for such gems as bigtittyfont and such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either adblock or noscript will have to add an 'opt out' for such gems as bigtittyfont and such.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717261</id>
	<title>Re:cutting edge considerd harmfull</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1247760960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's nothing wrong, however, in using CSS for features that are nice if present but not absolutely necessary for displaying the content. Box drop shadows and special fonts are two things that won't prevent you from reading a website if you don't see them. It just won't look the same and that's fine because that's the way the Web works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing wrong , however , in using CSS for features that are nice if present but not absolutely necessary for displaying the content .
Box drop shadows and special fonts are two things that wo n't prevent you from reading a website if you do n't see them .
It just wo n't look the same and that 's fine because that 's the way the Web works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing wrong, however, in using CSS for features that are nice if present but not absolutely necessary for displaying the content.
Box drop shadows and special fonts are two things that won't prevent you from reading a website if you don't see them.
It just won't look the same and that's fine because that's the way the Web works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716249</id>
	<title>Finally!</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1247757000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sample page looks great, in Firefox 3.5 and Safari 4 anyway. Those dingbats don't look particularly good, but I don't know if that's what the font itself looks like or if they aren't rendering properly. The page does take a bit longer to load, but once it's loaded I don't see problems.</p><p>I recall back in college, over 10 years ago now, hearing about custom web fonts. I even played with it a few times, but that went out the window when the type foundries all freaked out. It certainly is encouraging not to have to be dependent on Flash if I want custom fonts, however, I have my reservations. I'll have to see how this works going forward.</p><p>The one downside with this ability, however, if that we're going to have people going absolutely nuts with fonts. If you thought MySpace pages looked like crap, wait until people start using crazy, illegible fonts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sample page looks great , in Firefox 3.5 and Safari 4 anyway .
Those dingbats do n't look particularly good , but I do n't know if that 's what the font itself looks like or if they are n't rendering properly .
The page does take a bit longer to load , but once it 's loaded I do n't see problems.I recall back in college , over 10 years ago now , hearing about custom web fonts .
I even played with it a few times , but that went out the window when the type foundries all freaked out .
It certainly is encouraging not to have to be dependent on Flash if I want custom fonts , however , I have my reservations .
I 'll have to see how this works going forward.The one downside with this ability , however , if that we 're going to have people going absolutely nuts with fonts .
If you thought MySpace pages looked like crap , wait until people start using crazy , illegible fonts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sample page looks great, in Firefox 3.5 and Safari 4 anyway.
Those dingbats don't look particularly good, but I don't know if that's what the font itself looks like or if they aren't rendering properly.
The page does take a bit longer to load, but once it's loaded I don't see problems.I recall back in college, over 10 years ago now, hearing about custom web fonts.
I even played with it a few times, but that went out the window when the type foundries all freaked out.
It certainly is encouraging not to have to be dependent on Flash if I want custom fonts, however, I have my reservations.
I'll have to see how this works going forward.The one downside with this ability, however, if that we're going to have people going absolutely nuts with fonts.
If you thought MySpace pages looked like crap, wait until people start using crazy, illegible fonts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716069</id>
	<title>Re:Courier, Arial, Times New Roman</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1247756220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot Comic Sans, Papyrus and Copperplate!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot Comic Sans , Papyrus and Copperplate !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot Comic Sans, Papyrus and Copperplate!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716167</id>
	<title>Re:Oh the agony...</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1247756640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh C'Mon. It isn't that bad. Do you prefer Flash-laden sites?...I thought so.</p><p>At least with this option you will be able to:<br>1-Copy any rendered text<br>2-Download/view the source<br>3-Change the fonts for your viewing pleasure or prevent downloading them (with a little help of greasemonkey)</p><p>Exploits are an issue but they'll get fixed. Same concerns arouse with Flash, Java, etc and they are all still there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh C'Mon .
It is n't that bad .
Do you prefer Flash-laden sites ? ...I thought so.At least with this option you will be able to : 1-Copy any rendered text2-Download/view the source3-Change the fonts for your viewing pleasure or prevent downloading them ( with a little help of greasemonkey ) Exploits are an issue but they 'll get fixed .
Same concerns arouse with Flash , Java , etc and they are all still there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh C'Mon.
It isn't that bad.
Do you prefer Flash-laden sites?...I thought so.At least with this option you will be able to:1-Copy any rendered text2-Download/view the source3-Change the fonts for your viewing pleasure or prevent downloading them (with a little help of greasemonkey)Exploits are an issue but they'll get fixed.
Same concerns arouse with Flash, Java, etc and they are all still there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716221</id>
	<title>Re:cutting edge considerd harmfull</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1247756880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If embedded fonts are really only used to change the way letters look like, as opposed to (mis-)using a font to map characters to completely different symbols, then it doesn't really hurt if the browser doesn't support the font. You'll just see a default font instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If embedded fonts are really only used to change the way letters look like , as opposed to ( mis- ) using a font to map characters to completely different symbols , then it does n't really hurt if the browser does n't support the font .
You 'll just see a default font instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If embedded fonts are really only used to change the way letters look like, as opposed to (mis-)using a font to map characters to completely different symbols, then it doesn't really hurt if the browser doesn't support the font.
You'll just see a default font instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716177</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on a sec...</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1247756640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"something that downloads something from the internet and pushes it through a browser without asking" is indeed a wee bit problematic, which is why browser security is a bit of an arms race. However, that description would apply just as neatly to HTML, images, scripts, embedded objects, and every other aspect of a web page. If you want to render a webpage, you have to pull stuff off a not-all-that-trusted server and let the browser chew on it, no other way to do it(well, you could ask the human about every element; but that would be damned annoying, and most humans have no useful way of answering the question properly, since malice often isn't obvious).<br> <br>

I suspect that, if there is a large enough group of people who care more about attack surfaces than about fonts, we'll soon see a plugin that screens or blocks @font-face the same way noscript controls scripts, or flashblock controls embeds(heck, you could probably whip something up fairly trivially in Greasemonkey, to substitute untrusted remote fonts for local ones). In the vast majority of cases, though, the risk of making the browser parse yet another file type will be seen as less important than the virtues of pretty pages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" something that downloads something from the internet and pushes it through a browser without asking " is indeed a wee bit problematic , which is why browser security is a bit of an arms race .
However , that description would apply just as neatly to HTML , images , scripts , embedded objects , and every other aspect of a web page .
If you want to render a webpage , you have to pull stuff off a not-all-that-trusted server and let the browser chew on it , no other way to do it ( well , you could ask the human about every element ; but that would be damned annoying , and most humans have no useful way of answering the question properly , since malice often is n't obvious ) .
I suspect that , if there is a large enough group of people who care more about attack surfaces than about fonts , we 'll soon see a plugin that screens or blocks @ font-face the same way noscript controls scripts , or flashblock controls embeds ( heck , you could probably whip something up fairly trivially in Greasemonkey , to substitute untrusted remote fonts for local ones ) .
In the vast majority of cases , though , the risk of making the browser parse yet another file type will be seen as less important than the virtues of pretty pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"something that downloads something from the internet and pushes it through a browser without asking" is indeed a wee bit problematic, which is why browser security is a bit of an arms race.
However, that description would apply just as neatly to HTML, images, scripts, embedded objects, and every other aspect of a web page.
If you want to render a webpage, you have to pull stuff off a not-all-that-trusted server and let the browser chew on it, no other way to do it(well, you could ask the human about every element; but that would be damned annoying, and most humans have no useful way of answering the question properly, since malice often isn't obvious).
I suspect that, if there is a large enough group of people who care more about attack surfaces than about fonts, we'll soon see a plugin that screens or blocks @font-face the same way noscript controls scripts, or flashblock controls embeds(heck, you could probably whip something up fairly trivially in Greasemonkey, to substitute untrusted remote fonts for local ones).
In the vast majority of cases, though, the risk of making the browser parse yet another file type will be seen as less important than the virtues of pretty pages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715963</id>
	<title>cutting edge considerd harmfull</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1247755800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For html (webpages) is considered has a bad idea to use the latest technology (with something like CSS as a exception, because was a *HUGE* upgrade).</p><p>You write pages that are compatible with standards, that don't break in the mayor browser (firefox and.. *sight* IE), but you have to avoid nice CSS3 features, that are not well supported (like css '3 colums' type of align).</p><p>Embeded font is there. Is unusable for a long period of time, maybe 5, maybe 10 years. Once the old browsers are forgothen and the new browsers dominate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For html ( webpages ) is considered has a bad idea to use the latest technology ( with something like CSS as a exception , because was a * HUGE * upgrade ) .You write pages that are compatible with standards , that do n't break in the mayor browser ( firefox and.. * sight * IE ) , but you have to avoid nice CSS3 features , that are not well supported ( like css '3 colums ' type of align ) .Embeded font is there .
Is unusable for a long period of time , maybe 5 , maybe 10 years .
Once the old browsers are forgothen and the new browsers dominate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For html (webpages) is considered has a bad idea to use the latest technology (with something like CSS as a exception, because was a *HUGE* upgrade).You write pages that are compatible with standards, that don't break in the mayor browser (firefox and.. *sight* IE), but you have to avoid nice CSS3 features, that are not well supported (like css '3 colums' type of align).Embeded font is there.
Is unusable for a long period of time, maybe 5, maybe 10 years.
Once the old browsers are forgothen and the new browsers dominate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716517</id>
	<title>Re:Hold on a sec...</title>
	<author>funkatron</author>
	<datestamp>1247758320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's just another form of graphics. You don't make a fuss over the image tag do you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just another form of graphics .
You do n't make a fuss over the image tag do you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just another form of graphics.
You don't make a fuss over the image tag do you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716733</id>
	<title>I don't get this</title>
	<author>mzs</author>
	<datestamp>1247759040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the '80s those of us not using English had a real problem with fonts in that we had no uniform way of having what we wrote appear on a screen or printer. I remember embedding printer control escape sequences that would back the print head up and then print a slash or tick over what was there so people could understand what letter it was. But even back then people were complaining about not having fancy fonts when there was this real problem. Remember font cartridges for printers?</p><p>Now the real problem is largely solved but these font weenies are still coming-up with crazy schemes to make text look a certain particular way and it is pretty ridiculous the amount of effort that has been spent over the years on this with schemes that end-up only working for a few short years before something new shows-up on the horizone when for the most part electronic text is about information rather than the appearance. Don't try and tell me that this is simple until you look up EOT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the '80s those of us not using English had a real problem with fonts in that we had no uniform way of having what we wrote appear on a screen or printer .
I remember embedding printer control escape sequences that would back the print head up and then print a slash or tick over what was there so people could understand what letter it was .
But even back then people were complaining about not having fancy fonts when there was this real problem .
Remember font cartridges for printers ? Now the real problem is largely solved but these font weenies are still coming-up with crazy schemes to make text look a certain particular way and it is pretty ridiculous the amount of effort that has been spent over the years on this with schemes that end-up only working for a few short years before something new shows-up on the horizone when for the most part electronic text is about information rather than the appearance .
Do n't try and tell me that this is simple until you look up EOT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the '80s those of us not using English had a real problem with fonts in that we had no uniform way of having what we wrote appear on a screen or printer.
I remember embedding printer control escape sequences that would back the print head up and then print a slash or tick over what was there so people could understand what letter it was.
But even back then people were complaining about not having fancy fonts when there was this real problem.
Remember font cartridges for printers?Now the real problem is largely solved but these font weenies are still coming-up with crazy schemes to make text look a certain particular way and it is pretty ridiculous the amount of effort that has been spent over the years on this with schemes that end-up only working for a few short years before something new shows-up on the horizone when for the most part electronic text is about information rather than the appearance.
Don't try and tell me that this is simple until you look up EOT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724663</id>
	<title>Re:I would find it very useful</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1247748660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Being able to embed "@font=sexagesimal.ttf" (or whatever the syntax is) would be very handy, but not if we're forced to convert our ttfs to Microsoft's worthless alternative format.</p></div><p>It's trivial to do with open-source utilities, such as ttf2eot for Linux.  Not a big barrier, just serve both formats.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This isn't about protecting copyrights on fonts, its about Microsoft making sure IE isn't quite compatible with every other browser, and making sure we have to use their tools if we want anything to work on their dominant platform (and, if history is anything to judge by, eventually buy a license to do so).</p></div><p>Well, originally EOT might have been that.  But it's been <a href="http://www.w3.org/Submission/EOT/" title="w3.org">openly specified</a> [w3.org] since March, months before any non-IE browser shipped web font support AFAIK.  There's <a href="http://code.google.com/p/ttf2eot/" title="google.com">a fully open-source ttf -&gt; eot converter</a> [google.com].

</p><p>(The only bit that's not an open standard at this point is MTX compression &mdash; Microsoft doesn't hold patents to that, Monotype Imaging does.  Monotype has said they're willing to license them in a GPL-compatible fashion if browsers are willing to support the compression as part of a web standard [it looks like they're not].  In any event, you can ignore that if you're only encoding the fonts, not decoding: just don't use that feature.)

</p><p>The reason to object to EOT is things like RootStrings.  But again, you don't have to use those if you don't want to.  One major contender for a future web standard all browsers are willing to support is some form of "EOT Lite" that's EOT with some objectionable features removed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being able to embed " @ font = sexagesimal.ttf " ( or whatever the syntax is ) would be very handy , but not if we 're forced to convert our ttfs to Microsoft 's worthless alternative format.It 's trivial to do with open-source utilities , such as ttf2eot for Linux .
Not a big barrier , just serve both formats.This is n't about protecting copyrights on fonts , its about Microsoft making sure IE is n't quite compatible with every other browser , and making sure we have to use their tools if we want anything to work on their dominant platform ( and , if history is anything to judge by , eventually buy a license to do so ) .Well , originally EOT might have been that .
But it 's been openly specified [ w3.org ] since March , months before any non-IE browser shipped web font support AFAIK .
There 's a fully open-source ttf - &gt; eot converter [ google.com ] .
( The only bit that 's not an open standard at this point is MTX compression    Microsoft does n't hold patents to that , Monotype Imaging does .
Monotype has said they 're willing to license them in a GPL-compatible fashion if browsers are willing to support the compression as part of a web standard [ it looks like they 're not ] .
In any event , you can ignore that if you 're only encoding the fonts , not decoding : just do n't use that feature .
) The reason to object to EOT is things like RootStrings .
But again , you do n't have to use those if you do n't want to .
One major contender for a future web standard all browsers are willing to support is some form of " EOT Lite " that 's EOT with some objectionable features removed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being able to embed "@font=sexagesimal.ttf" (or whatever the syntax is) would be very handy, but not if we're forced to convert our ttfs to Microsoft's worthless alternative format.It's trivial to do with open-source utilities, such as ttf2eot for Linux.
Not a big barrier, just serve both formats.This isn't about protecting copyrights on fonts, its about Microsoft making sure IE isn't quite compatible with every other browser, and making sure we have to use their tools if we want anything to work on their dominant platform (and, if history is anything to judge by, eventually buy a license to do so).Well, originally EOT might have been that.
But it's been openly specified [w3.org] since March, months before any non-IE browser shipped web font support AFAIK.
There's a fully open-source ttf -&gt; eot converter [google.com].
(The only bit that's not an open standard at this point is MTX compression — Microsoft doesn't hold patents to that, Monotype Imaging does.
Monotype has said they're willing to license them in a GPL-compatible fashion if browsers are willing to support the compression as part of a web standard [it looks like they're not].
In any event, you can ignore that if you're only encoding the fonts, not decoding: just don't use that feature.
)

The reason to object to EOT is things like RootStrings.
But again, you don't have to use those if you don't want to.
One major contender for a future web standard all browsers are willing to support is some form of "EOT Lite" that's EOT with some objectionable features removed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28726573</id>
	<title>Re:Oh Lord!</title>
	<author>krisbrowne42</author>
	<datestamp>1247772180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting. The page, fonts, etc. all looked fantastic in Safari and Firefox on my Mac.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
The page , fonts , etc .
all looked fantastic in Safari and Firefox on my Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
The page, fonts, etc.
all looked fantastic in Safari and Firefox on my Mac.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719329</id>
	<title>however, you can patent fonts...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247768640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the USA, the DESIGN of a font is something you cannot copyright. Only the software that is the font file itself.</p></div><p>However, you can get a design patent on the design of a font.  It doesn't last forever like copyright would, but it's pretty strong protection for your design.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the USA , the DESIGN of a font is something you can not copyright .
Only the software that is the font file itself.However , you can get a design patent on the design of a font .
It does n't last forever like copyright would , but it 's pretty strong protection for your design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the USA, the DESIGN of a font is something you cannot copyright.
Only the software that is the font file itself.However, you can get a design patent on the design of a font.
It doesn't last forever like copyright would, but it's pretty strong protection for your design.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718963</id>
	<title>Re:Web developers can now easily embed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247767200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't know about "kearning," but quite a few of us know about kerning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't know about " kearning , " but quite a few of us know about kerning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't know about "kearning," but quite a few of us know about kerning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718785</id>
	<title>At last!</title>
	<author>i\_am\_socket</author>
	<datestamp>1247766480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I welcome the addition and support for this.  As a "front end" developer I get all kinds of requests for non-standard fonts to be used. They pay the bills so we do it; all as images. Changing a site from one color to another requires reworking dozens to hundreds of images. If all I have to do is embed their dumb fonts, I can go back to complaining about their color choices instead of mountains of work it'll cause me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I welcome the addition and support for this .
As a " front end " developer I get all kinds of requests for non-standard fonts to be used .
They pay the bills so we do it ; all as images .
Changing a site from one color to another requires reworking dozens to hundreds of images .
If all I have to do is embed their dumb fonts , I can go back to complaining about their color choices instead of mountains of work it 'll cause me ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I welcome the addition and support for this.
As a "front end" developer I get all kinds of requests for non-standard fonts to be used.
They pay the bills so we do it; all as images.
Changing a site from one color to another requires reworking dozens to hundreds of images.
If all I have to do is embed their dumb fonts, I can go back to complaining about their color choices instead of mountains of work it'll cause me ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716423</id>
	<title>What that means, in brief, is that Web developers</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1247757960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...can now bugger up pages in even more ways that will make them hard to read and cause them to render incorrectly for those of us who cannot read 2 point type.</p><p>Not to mention even slower to load.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...can now bugger up pages in even more ways that will make them hard to read and cause them to render incorrectly for those of us who can not read 2 point type.Not to mention even slower to load .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...can now bugger up pages in even more ways that will make them hard to read and cause them to render incorrectly for those of us who cannot read 2 point type.Not to mention even slower to load.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719223</id>
	<title>Font foundries are the biggest problem</title>
	<author>xant</author>
	<datestamp>1247768220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Font creators want a comically bad permission scheme to use their fonts.  Since there's no standard in place and no implementation in place, that effectively means that every font foundry is going to go out of business trying to sell their offline-only fonts to people who can't use them where they really want to. <a href="http://diveintomark.org/archives/2009/04/21/fuck-the-foundries" title="diveintomark.org">Mark Pilgrim has it right: Fuck the Foundries.</a> [diveintomark.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Font creators want a comically bad permission scheme to use their fonts .
Since there 's no standard in place and no implementation in place , that effectively means that every font foundry is going to go out of business trying to sell their offline-only fonts to people who ca n't use them where they really want to .
Mark Pilgrim has it right : Fuck the Foundries .
[ diveintomark.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Font creators want a comically bad permission scheme to use their fonts.
Since there's no standard in place and no implementation in place, that effectively means that every font foundry is going to go out of business trying to sell their offline-only fonts to people who can't use them where they really want to.
Mark Pilgrim has it right: Fuck the Foundries.
[diveintomark.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717007</id>
	<title>Re:Web developers can now easily embed...</title>
	<author>Piata</author>
	<datestamp>1247760000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing about Web Designers (I assume you mean web designers and not "web developers" as the two are <i>very</i> different in my books) is that the majority of them have never had a reason to know the finer points of typography. Web browsers never gave them that much fidelity and there will be all kinds of typographic horrors until people learn tasteful ways of using these tools. It's the same with Photoshop... every new Photoshop user at some point decides everything they do should have a lens flare (or several). After a few months, they realise it's stupid/ugly and never use that filter again.</p><p>The designers that cut their teeth on printed media already know what kerning, tracking and leading are and why you would use them. They also know what tasteful font selection is, the difference between serif and sans-serif fonts and that above all, any font used should be legible. Web designers will figure this all out in time and while there will be a lot of misuse initially, things need to move forward. Unless you prefer we all use the same 3 fonts from here to eternity and drastically reduce the number of usable colours, because lets be honest... 24 bit allows for far too many shades of putrid green and plum purple combinations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing about Web Designers ( I assume you mean web designers and not " web developers " as the two are very different in my books ) is that the majority of them have never had a reason to know the finer points of typography .
Web browsers never gave them that much fidelity and there will be all kinds of typographic horrors until people learn tasteful ways of using these tools .
It 's the same with Photoshop... every new Photoshop user at some point decides everything they do should have a lens flare ( or several ) .
After a few months , they realise it 's stupid/ugly and never use that filter again.The designers that cut their teeth on printed media already know what kerning , tracking and leading are and why you would use them .
They also know what tasteful font selection is , the difference between serif and sans-serif fonts and that above all , any font used should be legible .
Web designers will figure this all out in time and while there will be a lot of misuse initially , things need to move forward .
Unless you prefer we all use the same 3 fonts from here to eternity and drastically reduce the number of usable colours , because lets be honest... 24 bit allows for far too many shades of putrid green and plum purple combinations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing about Web Designers (I assume you mean web designers and not "web developers" as the two are very different in my books) is that the majority of them have never had a reason to know the finer points of typography.
Web browsers never gave them that much fidelity and there will be all kinds of typographic horrors until people learn tasteful ways of using these tools.
It's the same with Photoshop... every new Photoshop user at some point decides everything they do should have a lens flare (or several).
After a few months, they realise it's stupid/ugly and never use that filter again.The designers that cut their teeth on printed media already know what kerning, tracking and leading are and why you would use them.
They also know what tasteful font selection is, the difference between serif and sans-serif fonts and that above all, any font used should be legible.
Web designers will figure this all out in time and while there will be a lot of misuse initially, things need to move forward.
Unless you prefer we all use the same 3 fonts from here to eternity and drastically reduce the number of usable colours, because lets be honest... 24 bit allows for far too many shades of putrid green and plum purple combinations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716447</id>
	<title>Admittedy Off-Topic</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1247758080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What was the tech used to convert photos to black and white pseudo-pen-and-ink pictures used on that page for the author's pictures?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What was the tech used to convert photos to black and white pseudo-pen-and-ink pictures used on that page for the author 's pictures ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What was the tech used to convert photos to black and white pseudo-pen-and-ink pictures used on that page for the author's pictures?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718725</id>
	<title>Not on Chromium?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247766300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't get any font format to work on latest Chromium or Iron. What's the deal with that? Do I need to copy over some DLLs from a Chrome install, as for video?</p><p>To convert TTF to that weird Microsoft EOT format, <a href="http://code.google.com/p/ttf2eot/downloads/list" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">ttf2eot</a> [google.com] works fine and is dead simple to use. What do I use to convert between OTF and TTF? Someone told me to just rename the file as they're very similar, but that didn't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't get any font format to work on latest Chromium or Iron .
What 's the deal with that ?
Do I need to copy over some DLLs from a Chrome install , as for video ? To convert TTF to that weird Microsoft EOT format , ttf2eot [ google.com ] works fine and is dead simple to use .
What do I use to convert between OTF and TTF ?
Someone told me to just rename the file as they 're very similar , but that did n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't get any font format to work on latest Chromium or Iron.
What's the deal with that?
Do I need to copy over some DLLs from a Chrome install, as for video?To convert TTF to that weird Microsoft EOT format, ttf2eot [google.com] works fine and is dead simple to use.
What do I use to convert between OTF and TTF?
Someone told me to just rename the file as they're very similar, but that didn't work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716945</id>
	<title>Re:To disable @font-face in Firefox 3.5</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247759820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point being?</p><p>Let me guess: You also disabled cookies, JavaScript, plugins, images, CSS, and render stuff in plain text. By reading the HTML and interpreting it manually.<br>Because someone could exploit a bug in any of those interpreters.</p><p>But pay attention! Because I am developing an exploit for your brain. So you better shoot yourself in the head really quick to avoid being "hacked" (yes, that "hacking") ^^</p><p>But before: Do you think goats.exe is a good name for it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point being ? Let me guess : You also disabled cookies , JavaScript , plugins , images , CSS , and render stuff in plain text .
By reading the HTML and interpreting it manually.Because someone could exploit a bug in any of those interpreters.But pay attention !
Because I am developing an exploit for your brain .
So you better shoot yourself in the head really quick to avoid being " hacked " ( yes , that " hacking " ) ^ ^ But before : Do you think goats.exe is a good name for it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point being?Let me guess: You also disabled cookies, JavaScript, plugins, images, CSS, and render stuff in plain text.
By reading the HTML and interpreting it manually.Because someone could exploit a bug in any of those interpreters.But pay attention!
Because I am developing an exploit for your brain.
So you better shoot yourself in the head really quick to avoid being "hacked" (yes, that "hacking") ^^But before: Do you think goats.exe is a good name for it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717097</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but we need semantic fonts</title>
	<author>Helios1182</author>
	<datestamp>1247760360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't we have both?  Specify fonts at the browser level and allow site-specific fonts to be over ridden.  That way people can see what the designer intended, but if they don't like it they can force their own settings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't we have both ?
Specify fonts at the browser level and allow site-specific fonts to be over ridden .
That way people can see what the designer intended , but if they do n't like it they can force their own settings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't we have both?
Specify fonts at the browser level and allow site-specific fonts to be over ridden.
That way people can see what the designer intended, but if they don't like it they can force their own settings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718919</id>
	<title>Re:The new BLINK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247767020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The &lt;blink&gt; tag has one legitimate use . . . </p><p>Shroedinger's cat is &lt;blink&gt;not&lt;/blink&gt; dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The tag has one legitimate use .
. .
Shroedinger 's cat is not dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The  tag has one legitimate use .
. .
Shroedinger's cat is not dead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717617</id>
	<title>To arts! To arts!</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1247762460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone watch the "Helvetica" documentary? Will the web become the new battleground for the modernists versus post modernists? Must millions more die on the bloody altar of typographic expression versus clarity of presentation? Peace, my brothers and sisters of the glyphic arts. We should not fight, for we must unite and stand against the common enemy to us all: Comic Sans MS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone watch the " Helvetica " documentary ?
Will the web become the new battleground for the modernists versus post modernists ?
Must millions more die on the bloody altar of typographic expression versus clarity of presentation ?
Peace , my brothers and sisters of the glyphic arts .
We should not fight , for we must unite and stand against the common enemy to us all : Comic Sans MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone watch the "Helvetica" documentary?
Will the web become the new battleground for the modernists versus post modernists?
Must millions more die on the bloody altar of typographic expression versus clarity of presentation?
Peace, my brothers and sisters of the glyphic arts.
We should not fight, for we must unite and stand against the common enemy to us all: Comic Sans MS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718167</id>
	<title>Re:Oh Lord!</title>
	<author>Dynedain</author>
	<datestamp>1247764500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think it looks bad with the fonts, take a look at it any version of IE (the older, the worse it gets)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think it looks bad with the fonts , take a look at it any version of IE ( the older , the worse it gets )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think it looks bad with the fonts, take a look at it any version of IE (the older, the worse it gets)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716591</id>
	<title>Re:Neat DRM...</title>
	<author>Main Gauche</author>
	<datestamp>1247758620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a clever thought.  But how long would it take to write a program that figures out how to decode your permutation using a dictionary?  And if you're doing anything more complicated than one-for-one substitution, you're basically back to what can already be done with flash, graphics, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a clever thought .
But how long would it take to write a program that figures out how to decode your permutation using a dictionary ?
And if you 're doing anything more complicated than one-for-one substitution , you 're basically back to what can already be done with flash , graphics , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a clever thought.
But how long would it take to write a program that figures out how to decode your permutation using a dictionary?
And if you're doing anything more complicated than one-for-one substitution, you're basically back to what can already be done with flash, graphics, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724217</id>
	<title>Re:Licensing nightmare?</title>
	<author>rbcd</author>
	<datestamp>1247745600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you end up with a legitimate copy as you describe. Now you could move that copy to your system font directory. You could direct anyone else who needs the font to go to the same website you got yours from and move it to your system font directory in the same way.</p><p>So if any one website uses a font, everyone has access to a free font download.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you end up with a legitimate copy as you describe .
Now you could move that copy to your system font directory .
You could direct anyone else who needs the font to go to the same website you got yours from and move it to your system font directory in the same way.So if any one website uses a font , everyone has access to a free font download .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you end up with a legitimate copy as you describe.
Now you could move that copy to your system font directory.
You could direct anyone else who needs the font to go to the same website you got yours from and move it to your system font directory in the same way.So if any one website uses a font, everyone has access to a free font download.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717425</id>
	<title>Crashes Safari 4.0.2</title>
	<author>tholomyes</author>
	<datestamp>1247761680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would love to look at the fonts, but that craigmod page crashed Safari (4.0.2) three times in a row. It looks like the font-face is definitively the reason for the crashes (the thread crashed on WebCore::FontCache::getFontData). I guess on the bright side I now know how to reliably crash Safari.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to look at the fonts , but that craigmod page crashed Safari ( 4.0.2 ) three times in a row .
It looks like the font-face is definitively the reason for the crashes ( the thread crashed on WebCore : : FontCache : : getFontData ) .
I guess on the bright side I now know how to reliably crash Safari .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to look at the fonts, but that craigmod page crashed Safari (4.0.2) three times in a row.
It looks like the font-face is definitively the reason for the crashes (the thread crashed on WebCore::FontCache::getFontData).
I guess on the bright side I now know how to reliably crash Safari.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717411</id>
	<title>Re:Oh Lord!</title>
	<author>odflyg</author>
	<datestamp>1247761680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Terrible as in "I don't like it" or as in "there's something wrong with the page"? I'm just wondering, because I'm also using Firefox 3.5 and I think the page looks great; not only is it pretty, but it's also nicely readable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Terrible as in " I do n't like it " or as in " there 's something wrong with the page " ?
I 'm just wondering , because I 'm also using Firefox 3.5 and I think the page looks great ; not only is it pretty , but it 's also nicely readable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terrible as in "I don't like it" or as in "there's something wrong with the page"?
I'm just wondering, because I'm also using Firefox 3.5 and I think the page looks great; not only is it pretty, but it's also nicely readable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716531</id>
	<title>Re:Self-downloading fonts...</title>
	<author>Joseph Lam</author>
	<datestamp>1247758380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>again it's a race between hackers and browser developers... Same thing happened to HTTP, HTML, Javascript, etc...</p><p>There is always a risk when processing any data from the net. It's impossible to make something that is 100\% secure. But when something gains popularity and is being depended on heavily, the effort going into the implementation will naturally grow and the security will improve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>again it 's a race between hackers and browser developers... Same thing happened to HTTP , HTML , Javascript , etc...There is always a risk when processing any data from the net .
It 's impossible to make something that is 100 \ % secure .
But when something gains popularity and is being depended on heavily , the effort going into the implementation will naturally grow and the security will improve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>again it's a race between hackers and browser developers... Same thing happened to HTTP, HTML, Javascript, etc...There is always a risk when processing any data from the net.
It's impossible to make something that is 100\% secure.
But when something gains popularity and is being depended on heavily, the effort going into the implementation will naturally grow and the security will improve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28720311</id>
	<title>*ducks</title>
	<author>ittybad</author>
	<datestamp>1247772060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yay, now we can design with Papyrus!
<a href="http://xkcd.com/590/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/590/</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay , now we can design with Papyrus !
http : //xkcd.com/590/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay, now we can design with Papyrus!
http://xkcd.com/590/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28723831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28722683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28722209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28721269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28721649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28723917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28751105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28725051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28722727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28726239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28751321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28735321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28751259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28751123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28751169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28721587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28726573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28725447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28722095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28721975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28720847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1335256_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719957
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716147
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716159
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28723831
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719237
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716765
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28751105
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716899
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717097
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724663
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716959
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28721649
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717995
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719223
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718299
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719355
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28726239
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28721269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28722727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717187
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718779
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716423
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28751123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28720847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28723917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28722095
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716447
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716249
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716637
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28722683
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716733
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716583
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716357
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717691
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28725447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716517
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716593
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718281
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716417
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716117
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718919
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717517
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717179
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28735321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28726573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716635
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716261
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716113
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28721587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28721975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718167
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716569
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716353
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28751259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28725051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717713
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28751169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28724015
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716095
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28751321
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716495
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28719159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28715963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28722209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716359
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1335256.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28717057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28718241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1335256.28716827
</commentlist>
</conversation>
