In a post on the IE Blog, the following excuse was given for not supporting SVG Fonts:
“As IE9 has implemented more of the standards that developers use and value, IE9’s Acid3 score has continued to rise. The remaining points involve two particular technologies (SVG Fonts and SMIL animation of SVG) that are in transition.
Support for SVG Fonts in the web development and font communities has been declining for some time. There’s already been discussion without objection of dropping SVG fonts from the Acid3 test. The community has put forth a proposal in the SVG Working Group to give SVG Fonts optional status.
Instead, developers can use the Web Open Font Format (WOFF, supported in IE9 Platform Preview 3 as well as other browsers) for both HTML and SVG content. It works well in conjunction with the CSS3 Fonts module and has broad support from leading font vendors (e.g. here, “a majority of font makers have already settled on WOFF or services like Typekit as their format of choice”). WOFF fonts are a better long-term solution for many reasons discussed previously.
Here is my reply as it appeared in the comments:
I think everybody deserves a truthful and rational explanation for any decision that effects digital publishing as profoundly as the display of fonts. From any browser maker. And especially from Microsoft who writes so many rules of the game.
Whatever disagreements there may be between some font producers and myself there is no disagreement on this: type is important, it’s fundamental. If questions are raised and the answer is, simply, “Suck it up. This is what we’ve decided to do.”, that may or may not be OK – it depends upon what we’re talking about – but I’d rather hear that, than jive posing as reason supported by wishes presented as facts.
What’s WOFF Got To Do With It?
Tina Turner sang that, right? What’s WOFF but a second hand emotion…♫♪♫♫
Anyway, to end, here’s an example of SVG fonts at work. Viewable in Opera, Chrome, and Safari: