Myfonts does not seem to expect anything. Just say, it is a webfont. Then it is a webfont. It neither matters, if the font is hinted, nor if the user can access unencoded characters like small caps in a pro font.

Font Squirrel has a page where you can submit an OTF/TTF file and get back a webfont kit. I think it's based around Unix/Linux programs, so if you have a Linux box or an OS-X Mac, you can probably assemble your own toolchain.

But Arno is right. A webfont is any font when it's used on the Web. As long as it looks good enough on the screen, no-one'll give you grief.

There are dedicated web font formats around: EOT (Internet Explorer), WOFF (Firefox 3.6 and later), Cufon, sIFR, typefaceJS... *swirly eyes*

Typophile has endless discussions about webfonts, webfont formats, webfont hinting/screen rendering and so on.
Just use Google with something like site:typophile.com webfonts

Concerning MyFonts: As the foundry newsletter told you, there is nothing you need to do. You just need to tell MyFonts to offer your fonts as webfonts. They have a workflow that will convert and optimize your fonts for the use on websites.

They have a workflow that will convert and optimize your fonts for the use on websites.

Does this mean, that myfonts would split Bitstream Charter Pro into a regular and a small cap part for example? Otherwise I can access only the half of the glyphs and therefore it is not really usable as webfont, especially because the license does not allow, that I split it into parts by myself. Sorry, but if I pay for a webfont, I really expect, that I can access all glyphs. So I assume, it actually is a half-baked thing.

@arno

My Lord, you ask the silliest questions! :-)
(and a merry christmas to ya, too.)

rich

Yes. Maybe I don’t expect anymore, that I get, for which I pay, when I am adult. In case of Bitstream Charter Pro you could not access the small caps, if you use it as webfont. But you pay for a webfont. Correct me, if I am wrong, but Myfonts seems to simply put the regular fonts into a woff container. That’s all, isn’t it? And the answer to the silly question, why they do that, is, that it is a very easy way to make money.

Correct me, if I am wrong, but Myfonts seems to simply put the regular fonts into a woff container.

Does anyone know this for sure? I never have been able to find many details about the MyFonts web fonts program.

'Arno Enslin' -- but if I pay for a webfont, I really expect, that I can access all glyphs

That's not a font issue but a browser issue, i.e. missing support of OT layout features. You're yelling at the wrong folks ...

@ Karsten

Even if we will see browsers, that support OT layout features in the next years, I doubt, that they better work with regard to that, than Office for example. Additionally I try to create websites, that are backwards compatible. And what’s with the specifications? It would be needed to add the registered features to the CSS specification, wouldn’t it? So I suppose, that browsers and specifications are supporting those OT layout features, that are actually registered, in five years or later.

Does MyFonts have a web font preview service? What's the return policy?

Cheers, Si

@Sii
"Does MyFonts have a web font preview service? What's the return policy?"

Jeez, Sii, you're starting to sound like me!

Thanks everyone for your helpful comments. Cheers for the holidays.

Let's get out of here quick, before they start signng old Alsacian hinting songs.

Too late. They've already broken out into the Hinters' Chorus from Der Bleifutz.

@ David

Arrogant as usual. Öfter mal die Klappe halten.

@Arno - If you want a browser supporting OT features, the only choice I know of is the Firefox 4 beta.

Thanks Té. I have Firefox 4 beta installed. But I would prefer, if I would be allowed, to split a font into parts and create CSS classes as replacement for the layout features. But it is forbidden by the license. Maybe I am asking Bitstream, if they allow it. If they don’t allow it, I will not use Charter. Another advantage would be, that I could remove those characters from the font, that I don’t use. By the way, Charter Standard is more expensive than Charter Pro. And in contradiction to Charter Pro, some of the styles are available in packages only. However, Charter Standard looks bolder than Charter Pro on Windows because of the hinting. Even if I could license the single styles of Charter Standard, I would not do that because of the hinting.

@arno
"But I would prefer, if I would be allowed, to split a font into parts and create CSS classes as replacement for the layout features"

FWIW - I've thought about it, and this would be my preference, too. This way, I could get some things happening across the board in browsers today, not ten years from now.

And whatever it means, I second that "die Klappe halten" thing you said. ;)

'Arno Enslin' -- But I would prefer, ...

I want. I want. I want.
Given your wishlist you better stick to Georgia. Well hinted including for the most problematic platforms (there is little chance that present or upcoming webfonts get close to its on-screen readability at text sizes since nobody or just a few may be able to invest what Microsoft possibly invested in their core fonts). And available on about every computer. Caps are small already so all-caps words won't stand out too much. If you think they do, set up an all-caps style with a slightly smaller font size.

Additionally I try to create websites, that are backwards compatible.

Making backward-compatible websites and using downloadable fonts? It seems that if there is no problem you're happy to create one. At least.

@ Karsten

Georgia would be in the second place of my font stack. And with regard to backwards compatibility your argument is not valid, because in case of the layout features there is a solution (font splitting), while there is no solution in case of font embedding. OT layout rules are even not compatible to the actual browser generation. In other words: If I would use those CSS rules, my website would be compatible to the most used browsers in a few years without backwards compatibility. If I split the fonts, my website is compatible to the actual browser generation and in five years it will be backwards compatible. By the way you seem to forget, that web pages can be printed. And I have a few texts, that are intended to become printed. So I am not interested in fake small caps. And except from that I don’t want to use Charter, because it looks nicer, but because it is more legible than Georgia in my opinion. Charter Pro really looks excellent. I simply will ask Bitstream, if they allow the splitting. And if they don’t allow it, they simply don’t get my money. I assume, that the foundries, which sell web fonts via Myfonts, want money. The “I want, I want, I want” is not on my side only. I only want a reward for my money. The reward is, that I am allowed to invest my time and my energy in splitting the font by myself. I even don’t expect, that they do that for me. If they want to have just a restrictive EULAA. Bad luck, but not only for me.

>Too late. They've already broken out ...

eek, then let's get out of here before the holiday spirits get into them, impossible obviously for some,, and they start singing Japanese compositing songs.

Cool Hand, baby! I was just reading your article and your conclusions and even some facts are wrong.
When will you stop with the "if only" agenda and take the world as it is?
You write like DirectWrite is a magic bullet that's going to end the need for hinting TT fonts. It don't, it won't. You make a reference to fonts with "just a little hinting" - isn't that sort of like "just a little pregnant". (And with the new Swiss laws regarding consensual incest, this can get pretty complicated. Ask Arno, he's the one who told me about it.)
And BTW - Cleartype is on by default in IE7 and 8. And take it from an old network engineer/desktop support guy: users never, ever change their fracking defaults.
Also, you write like desktop browsers are the be-all, end-all. They're not. iPad is big. iPhone is big. Mobile browsing in general is big, big, big, and growing by leaps and bounds.
The Chrome OS comes out this year. I expect that Ubuntu will make some strides, too.
You did get one thing right, though: the problem is as much about font weight as hinting.

And why are the fonts on Webtype so boring?

Yes, yes, I want, I want, I want. And guess what? I'm gettin' it.

Merry Xmas!

>Yes, yes, I want, I want, I want. And guess what? I'm gettin' it.

You, I contend, are getting the most expensive fonts in the entire history of amateur typography. :)

After the costs are amortized, it's bubkis, really.

@arno - Have you gone through the Arkandis fonts to see if there's anything usable there? Sure, they seem to be mostly print fonts, but some of them are tolerable screen fonts. Of course, Finagle may strike such that the size you want on screen is the very size where they look bloody awful...

Of course, Finagle may strike such that the size you want on screen is the very size where they look bloody awful...

Zoom, Zoom, Zoom.

if I would be allowed, to split a font into parts and create CSS classes as replacement for the layout features.

How many customers are there, that can split a modern webfont with OT features and preserve TrueType hinting, keep OT features and kerning working? 1 out of 50? And the other 49 will mess it up, ending up with bad looking or malfunctioning fonts and they or the viewers of their websites will blame the type foundry. So that's not a route the foundries will take.
If features such as small caps should work in a webfont, they should be already in the font as OT feature (wont work now) or be provided by the foundry as separate font (as FSI does it) or be generated on the fly by the vendor's system (as Typotheque's webfont service does it)
You purchase a license to use a font. Foundries don't sell toolbox of glyphs and codes so you can build whatever you want from it.
(Multiple Master was a step in that direction but the avarage user apparently didn't want that.)

Hi Ralf.
Just for the analytical exercise:

How many customers are there, that can split a modern webfont with OT features and preserve TrueType hinting, keep OT features and kerning working? 1 out of 50? And the other 49 will mess it up, ending up with bad looking or malfunctioning fonts and they or the viewers of their websites will blame the type foundry. So that's not a route the foundries will take.

Typekit (among others) - and by their own admission, really - delivers all the 'bad looking and malfunctioning fonts' you could possibly want now, today. So what?
You talk of "the foundries" as a monolithic entity. Has there been a grand merger I'm unaware of? Some foundries will do whatever they think a customer is willing to pay for.

If features such as small caps should work in a webfont, they should 1) be already in the font as OT feature (wont work now) or 2) be provided by the foundry as separate font (as FSI does it) or 3) be generated on the fly by the vendor's system (as Typotheque's webfont service does it)

Well, okay. All Arno is asking for is option number 2, so where's the disagreement?

You purchase a license to use a font. Foundries don't sell toolbox of glyphs and codes so you can build whatever you want from it.
Some will.