Careful, you can't legally serve these fonts with your app, you can only link to them. Am I the only one who finds this a big deal? It means you can't control the uptime of your fonts, and it seems like it would complicate development when you're offline, too.<p>From a business standpoint, it makes perfect sense to turn fonts into a "service" by hyping the hosting aspect. It would be like if jQuery said you can't serve jquery.js from your web server, you can only link to it, and then they start offering paid versions of jQuery.<p>I realize fonts are a commercial product, but my understanding is that Google Web Fonts really <i>are</i> free to use in your apps, whereas this is a free <i>service</i>. According to the terms, it is illegal to "retransmit" the "Service Materials".
Adobe really needs to drop the corporate marketer talk.<p>"Adobe Edge Tools & Services: New tools and services for a beautiful, modern web."<p>"Edge Web Fonts is conveniently built into Edge Code today and will be available in Edge Reflow and other Edge Tools & Services soon."<p>I'm reading all this and I still have no idea what Edge is or why I should care.<p>A much more informative link for the HN audience is this: <a href="http://www.edgefonts.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.edgefonts.com/</a>
Neat, but I don't understand why Adobe would do this. I already use Adobe Typekit, and $50/year gives me access to a huge library of fonts at an unlimited number of websites. For my purposes, I'm tempted to stop paying even that totally reasonable, meager amount and just use this free offering instead.<p>After following most of the links on the page, I can't find any mention of limits on pageviews or traffic. On the surface of it, that makes their free offering a little bit better than their paid offering.
<p><pre><code> <script src="http://use.edgefonts.net/league-gothic.js"></script>
</code></pre>
I wonder why they pushed negotiation to the client side instead of doing like google. you need to send this <a href="http://use.edgefonts.net/league-gothic.js" rel="nofollow">http://use.edgefonts.net/league-gothic.js</a> to your user instead of this <a href="http://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Source+Code+Pro" rel="nofollow">http://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Source+Code+Pro</a> in order to serve your font, and it won't work with js disabled.
Sad that they don't support international characters (or at least not the full character set of the language we use here).<p>Fonts provided by Google are better in character range coverage. Anyway, thanks Adobe.
<i>"In addition, Adobe will be applying its considerable font expertise to improving and optimizing a number of the open source fonts that are available in both Google Web Fonts and Edge Web Fonts. The teams from Typekit, Adobe Type, and Google Web Fonts are working to identify which fonts will benefit the most from our attention, and how we can best approach improving their rendering and performance."</i><p>Helping to improve fonts that are not just freely available, but freely available on services other than your own? It's almost like I'm starting to feel goodwill towards Adobe. It's rather strange.
Browse the fonts listed in the select box:
<a href="http://2012.s3.amazonaws.com/edgefonts.html" rel="nofollow">http://2012.s3.amazonaws.com/edgefonts.html</a>
I see a few overlapping fonts (or, at least, overlapping names) from Google Web Fonts. But most seem new.<p>Is there going to be a new competition over who has the 'cutting-edge' fonts?
Am I right in thinking that they don't support Web Font Loader? [1]<p>Considering this is built on top of Typekit — which does support Web Font Loader — this is surprising.<p>[1] - <a href="https://developers.google.com/webfonts/docs/webfont_loader" rel="nofollow">https://developers.google.com/webfonts/docs/webfont_loader</a>
If Adobe were really interested improving the web typography either Myriad Pro would be in the free set (it isn't) or they would change the default font in their creative suites to one of the free fonts (they haven't)
This is frustrating. I've spent 10 minutes on their site, checked out the links, and still can't figure out how to browse their font collection. Am I supposed to sign up with this Edge tool to do that? By contrast, see <a href="http://www.google.com/webfonts" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/webfonts</a>. You land there and start working.
Still no VAG Rundschrift. I have seen people request it on Typekit for years. Adobe is the licensor for this font, I have no idea why they haven't listened and either start offering it as a web font or explain why they won't/can't.
Priceless!
"Our mission: move the web forward and give web designers and developers the best tools and services in the world."
And then: "Download a PDF version of this document (PDF, 47 KB)"
I have a question on how web-fonts actually work.<p>I thought fonts basically just vector graphics. Since these are just java-script files, how are they being distributed? How do these work?
This is trash. A repackaging of a lot of free OFL type that's already out there, but new and improved with restricted licensing, JS dependency, and relying on Adobe.
Too bad this is what hit the top slot. They also announced the release of the open source code and its monospace variant. I'm using it in elementary OS and it looks fantastic in Sublime Text and terminal.
I no longer trust, nor like Adobe. And I don't think I ever will again. I genuinely want to see them fail in everything they do and I care not one jot for the men and women who work there or their families. I root for Pixelmator, I salute Apple's stance on flash and even wanted Silverlight to give Adobe a run for it's money.<p>There is a point to this rant. I have used Adobe products my entire working life. I loved Adobe and the products they made. But now...? I am what happens when you treat your users like shit, and everyone else like idiots.<p>Fortunatly for me, my inflated opinion and militant outlook is made more tenable when they keep releasing turds like this.