<story><title>A few HTML tips</title><url>https://hacks.mozilla.org/2016/08/a-few-html-tips/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>wtbob</author><text>Web Fonts for images are a true anti-pattern.  It&amp;#x27;s actually almost funny how many pages are full of ſ and so forth, because they assume that folks are using a graphical browser running JavaScript.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>madeofpalk</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t think there&amp;#x27;s anything wrong with assuming people are running a graphical browser.&lt;p&gt;We&amp;#x27;re at the point where, depending on your exact industry&amp;#x2F;usecase, earlier IE versions are less than 1% for a lot of &amp;#x27;mainstream&amp;#x27; sites. The amount of people who aren&amp;#x27;t able to render a custom web font, let alone a non-graphical browser, would be in the extreme minority.&lt;p&gt;IMHO, that is not a use case that&amp;#x27;s not worth worrying about.</text></comment>
<story><title>A few HTML tips</title><url>https://hacks.mozilla.org/2016/08/a-few-html-tips/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>wtbob</author><text>Web Fonts for images are a true anti-pattern.  It&amp;#x27;s actually almost funny how many pages are full of ſ and so forth, because they assume that folks are using a graphical browser running JavaScript.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>gpvos</author><text>Hear, hear. Web fonts are fine when used as fonts. They are &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; fine when used as images (unless the image corresponds to an actual Unicode character).</text></comment>