11–14 of 14 posts
Better use this while you can -- this appears to be a re-packaging of http://www.yourfonts.com/ , which was free and then became a commercial service. (The template file especially is very similar.) Yourfonts.com might take exception to this. (Edit: I had the URL wrong.)
Unlikely, there's a dev blog: http://www.fontcapture.com/blog/
Better use this while you can -- this appears to be a re-packaging of http://www.yourfonts.com/ , which was free and then became a commercial service. (The template file especially is very similar.) Yourfonts.com might take exception to this. (Edit: I had the URL wrong.)
> this appears to be a re-packaging of http://www.yourfonts.com/ Unlikely, there's a dev blog: http://www.fontcapture.com/blog/
That said, I took a closer look at their template compared to yourfonts.com, and although they're similar (by necessity), they're different enough that it's likely that fontcapture created their own.
I'm really glad fontcapture came along; I just hope they can stick around.
Would be really sweet if there was any practical way to use new fonts on the web, IM, or email. I like it because it involves printing and scanning. Web apps that involve physical stuff are fun.
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/07/font-face-typekit-an... Its coming, slowly.
There are two new formats - one is a new format called WebOTF, which is a new binary format consisting of a raw font plus compressed XML metadata. The other is EOT Lite (which is likely to be renamed to something without "EOT" in the name), which is a subset of the old EOT functionality that IE has offered for several years, dropping the more controversial aspects such as rootstring (essentially browser copy protection) and font compression (which is patented).
Both parties are happy with both formats, and I believe Mozilla are planning to support both in the next version of Firefox, so the end result is likely that both become part of any standard.
Great, now I have a font as unreadable as my own monkey-scrawl! Fabulous.