为什么设计者使用sIFR，如果他们可以使用@ font-face？ [英] Why do designers use sIFR if they can use @font-face?

问题描述

为什么设计师使用sIFR，如果他们可以使用@ font-face？

@ font-face有什么问题？

  @ font-face {
 font-family：Hacen Tehran_eot; 
 src：url（'Hacen Tehran.eot'）; 
} 
 
 @ font-face {
 font-family：Hacen Tehran_ttf; 
 src：url（'Hacen Tehran.ttf'）; 
 
 
 p {
 font-family：Hacen Tehran_eot，Hacen Tehran_ttf，sans-serif; 
 font-size：40px; 
 
 
 
 $ b $ div class =h2_lin>解决方案

@ font-face有什么问题？

这是新的，至少兼容的浏览器支持它是新的。 >



到目前为止，唯一支持IE的浏览器是IE，然后只有EOT字体格式，这种格式只能由复杂和不受欢迎的WEFT应用程序生成。 >



今天仍然存在格式问题。虽然WOFF是未来的明智赢家，但是我们仍然有一些最近需要TTF / OTF的浏览器，加上iPhone和奇怪的SVG字体，当然还有大量的IE< 9浏览器需要EOT。

将这个问题与寻找许可证实际上允许它们嵌入网页的字体的问题结合起来，而@ font-face是一个非启动器。许可证的情况最近得到了改善，有很多高质量的字体可用于真正的Web嵌入。

但是，你已经选择了一种字体，尤其是那些仍然拖着脚跟的主要代工厂，这是不可能的。像sIFR和Cufon这样的基于矢量的替换技术更像是传统许可证经常允许的常规嵌入，基于图像的替换技术根本不需要嵌入许可证。

Why do designers use sIFR if they can use @font-face ?

What is wrong with @font-face ?

@font-face {
    font-family: "Hacen Tehran_eot";
    src: url('Hacen Tehran.eot');
}

@font-face {
    font-family: "Hacen Tehran_ttf";
    src: url('Hacen Tehran.ttf');
}

p {
    font-family:"Hacen Tehran_eot", "Hacen Tehran_ttf", sans-serif;
    font-size:40px;
}

解决方案

What is wrong with @font-face ?

It's new, or at least compatible browser support for it is new.

Until very recently, the only browser to support it was IE, and then only with the EOT font format, which could only be generated by the complicated and unpopular WEFT application.

There are still format problems today. Although WOFF is the clear future winner, we've still got some recent browsers that need TTF/OTF instead, plus iPhone and its bizarre SVG fonts, and of course plenty of IE<9 browsers that want EOT.

Combine this with the issue of finding fonts whose licences actually allowed them to be embedded in a web page, and @font-face was a non-starter. The licence situation has got much better recently, with plenty of good-quality fonts available for real web embedding.

But still, chances are if you've already picked a font, especially from one of the major foundries who are still dragging their heels, it's not going to be possible to license it. Vector-based replacement techniques like sIFR and Cufon are more like the regular embedding that traditional licences often allow, and image-based replacement techniques don't need an embedding licence at all.

这篇关于为什么设计者使用sIFR，如果他们可以使用@ font-face？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！