Talk:Web Open Font Format

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


And here I thought there would be some discussion. ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Browser support table[edit]

A table showing which versions (say, the left axis) of which browsers (say, labeled on the top axis) support WOFF would be helpful and very easy to find and absorb as a reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

sry, but for what? in the text there is explaining which versions of browsers does support woff! mabdul 11:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Comparison of layout engines (Web Typography) already has such a table. I'm linking to it from the article.
--Gyrobo (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The mention of Internet Explorer 9 should probably be updated now that it's officially released (WOFF support is now in IE9 release vs the mention about the platform preview 3 build). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Vendor support out-of-date[edit]

The text in vendor support is out-of-date. All current versions of desktop browsers now support WOFF, including Internet Explorer and Safari. (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Updated and removed the template. Please replace my reference if find more authoritive changelog for Safari. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Worth updating for mobile. The iPhone originally used fonts in SVG only, and then TrueType support was added. Not sure about WOFF. --John Nagle (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing "Capturing webfonts" section[edit]

I'm removing this section for the following reasons:

  1. Completely unsourced.
  2. The "often with cryptic alphanumeric names" most likely refers to the manner in which some font foundries (such as Monotype's service) obfuscate their font file names. This has nothing to do with the format.
  3. The section goes from a how-to guide to a discussion of the featuresets on font foundries' websites. Again, nothing to do with WOFF.

--Gyrobo (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Why we need to reference the original WOFF and WOFF2 conversion code[edit]

I just did a Google search for “WOFF conversion code”. This is what I get on the first page of results:

Note that there is not a link to the actual original sfnt2woff converter or woff2sfnt converter when doing a basic Google search. This is a useful piece of code to have, and since the online conversion tools with inline ads or paid membership have saturated the Google search results, it’s good to counter that by discussing and linking to the actual free open source reference code. Samboy (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)