71–80 of 84 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, try it with Droid Sans, compare the results, report back. @font-face generators are dime a dozen. The issue is that they generate kits of subpar quality for Google fonts.
Most of the time Font Squirrel has them made already, and you don't need to convert the already stripped down fonts from Google's severs...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Except the part where they allow you to download them and serve yourself. Yeah, you try that. It's a single format that you need to convert yourself to produce woffs, eots and other variations needed for the actual self-hosted deployment, and no matter how you convert, they will never come out looking the same as Google's native versions. This "go ahead, host it yourself" is disingenious and manipulative at best.
... All the fonts are open source, you can quite literally use Google's native versions. It's not exactly rocket science. You want Droid Sans? http://themes.googleusercontent.com/static/fonts/droidsans/v... http://themes.googleusercontent.com/static/fonts/droidsans/v... http://themes.googleusercontent.com/static/fonts/droidsans/v...
Rocket science or not, the bottom line is that these are not available from Google Fonts. You are expected to either use hosted version or muddle through the conversion process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Except the part where they allow you to download them and serve yourself. Yeah, you try that. It's a single format that you need to convert yourself to produce woffs, eots and other variations needed for the actual self-hosted deployment, and no matter how you convert, they will never come out looking the same as Google's native versions. This "go ahead, host it yourself" is disingenious and manipulative at best.
... All the fonts are open source, you can quite literally use Google's native versions. It's not exactly rocket science. You want Droid Sans? http://themes.googleusercontent.com/static/fonts/droidsans/v... http://themes.googleusercontent.com/static/fonts/droidsans/v... http://themes.googleusercontent.com/static/fonts/droidsans/v...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your naivety is adoring.
If you want to skip the personal attacks and explain 1. What "trillions of visits logged" means, exactly. IE what you think is being logged past a request for a font. 2. What you think the data is actually used for The web font loader is open source, so this should not be too hard to explain what it's sending that you think is valuable and why. Or you know, you could just continue on with meaningless ad-hominen attac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't break out android because it would contradict the usage numbers they would like people to believe.
Yes, i'm sure that's the reason .... It would actually be impressive if google was such a single cohesive whole
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to skip the personal attacks and explain 1. What "trillions of visits logged" means, exactly. IE what you think is being logged past a request for a font. 2. What you think the data is actually used for The web font loader is open source, so this should not be too hard to explain what it's sending that you think is valuable and why. Or you know, you could just continue on with meaningless ad-hominen attac…
You know you're arguing with Dale Gribble, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the time Font Squirrel has them made already, and you don't need to convert the already stripped down fonts from Google's severs...
Font Squirrel conversion botches up a lot of fonts, Droid Sans being the prime example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't put anything more than 10KB into a CSS file as a data URI.
Where does this limit come from? IE8 can handle up to 32KB[1], and more recent versions of all major browsers appear to have much higher limits. IE7 and below didn't support data: anyway. [1] See http://caniuse.com/datauri , and confirmed by Microsoft's own technical documentation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where does this limit come from? IE8 can handle up to 32KB[1], and more recent versions of all major browsers appear to have much higher limits. IE7 and below didn't support data: anyway. [1] See http://caniuse.com/datauri , and confirmed by Microsoft's own technical documentation.
Oh I didn't mean that to be a browser limitation, but that it is generally a good idea performance wise.
In terms of file size, a naive implementation of replacing reference to image files with data: URIs carries a theoretical overhead of 1/3. However in practice, as long as you're serving the relevant CSS file gzipped, you're likely to see less than 5% overhead on a single file. If you've got several similar image files converted to data: URIs within the same CSS file, you might even see a significant gain because the compression can remove more redundancy.
In terms of HTTP requests, generally fewer is better, so it's hard to go wrong here by using data: URIs instead of separate but relatively small image files.
The only major factor I can immediately think of that is clearly in favour of separate image files, unless you're really at the level where the decoding performance for data: URIs makes a significant difference, is that the image files can be cached independently, which may or may not be a win depending on how you manage your CSS and how often the various parts of it change relative to each other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, i'm sure that's the reason .... It would actually be impressive if google was such a single cohesive whole
If Google is not a single cohesive whole, how can you speak for it?
I set policy around open source and open source licensing. I can speak officially to open source issues for Google (though at least here, i'm not unless I specifically say I am)
This does not mean it's a cohesive whole however.
In particular, a small team Of 3-4 people in the middle of a random non-android product area is not going to have the android team breathing down their neck asking them to "not break down numbers" or whatever the parent thinks happened here.