I understand wanting to feel part of a tradition. Very much. And what someone wants to call themselves is completely up to them, not me. Since I wrote this post I’ve seen the word “foundry” used on newly written web pages three times. I’m being outvoted!
And I’m certainly not on a crusade to do away with the word. Only to suggest alternatives and point out that, while many computer users know that a font is a typeface, few will be familiar with the historical connection to cast metal type foundries and may even be confused by it.
Mark Pilgrim took full advantage of the word’s vague historical connotations in the minds of most readers to turn what is, in fact, a rather rag-tag and disorganized community into a looming menace to the future of web typography. WTF, eh?
BTW – you’re absolutely right about typography, it is all about habit. Changes come very very slowly.
Although I would argue that the Internet and the huge increase in reading from screens has caused an unprecedented disconnect from the conventions of print typography.

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that “foundry” carries with it a positive connotation of expertise.
Thanks for that perspective, it didn’t occur to me.
BTW – what got me thinking about all this, in addition to Mark Pilgrim’s infamous blog post, was that at the Web Fonts Panel at TypeCon2009, type designer John Hudson – as head of his own company Tiro – was introduced as a “font producer”.
Myself, I’m leaning towards “font studio” or “type studio” as a replacement for “foundry”, meaning a company that makes fonts on a professional level.
Any other ideas greatly welcome.