Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Google has launched Google font API but, CSS3 standard came with @fontface which enables us to have non web safe fonts on websites.
Can anyone suggest pros and cons of both over each other. Which one is preferred and why?
As far as I’m aware, Google Font API uses
@font-faceto load the fonts. eg. http://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Tangerine. It also does browser detection to check for Internet Explorer, for whom it will serve up the IE-only.eotfont files instead.Now I’ll take it that you’re asking for a comparison between building you’re own font files for use with
@font-faceand working with Google’s solution.Google Font API
Pro
Cons
Google’s licensing scheme, which requires the font to be not only freely available, but also Open Source, means that the amount of fonts that will be available for this service will naturally be small.
Build your own
@font-facefilePro
Cons
Of course commercial options like Typekit have the best of both worlds, but you’d have to pay for that. Other sources of free, embeddable fonts include Font Squirrel and The League of Moveable Type.