[OpenFontLibrary] [Blueprint font-face-generator] The library must automatically generate @font-face files for uploaded fonts

[Christopher Adams]

Is everyone in agreement that we should prioritize webfont generation
and display site-wide before we implement fall-backs like static
images for font samples?

Furthermore, is everyone of the opinion that there is less and less
rationale for implementing static image font samples at all? For
example, http://www.google.com/webfonts is a @font-face-only affair.

There are two scenarios where static image font specimens are desirable:

1) The user's browser does not support @font-face. Without static
images the font specimens will be displayed as the default from the
user's font stack.

  WORKAROUND: Use Modernizer.js to detect @font-face support.
  Display a warning to the user if his or her browser is not supported.

2) A font listing contains scores of font samples. Downloading all
those font files can take longer than compressed PNGs.

  WORKAROUND: Don't design pages with a huge number of font samples.
  http://www.google.com/webfonts provides a good baseline.

Of course we can put static font specimens on a wishlist. I'm just
trying to weight were you think that feature should fit within our
priorities.

- Christopher